I rather thought that was the purpose of the Second Amendment, to make lawmakers and government feel intimidated. It was certainly the understanding of the founders and the framers who were well aware of the need to intimidate the British crown and for the people to have the wherewithal to do it.
It seems to me a perfect marriage of the first and 2nd amendments to freely associate underarms to intimidate the government. That's precisely what those amendments are there for.
The purpose of the armed counter protesters is clearly less noble and less constitutional, although also constitutionally protected, they are not there to intimidate the government but to enable it by intimidating the people.
Of course. As a teacher, I have had the chance to get into discussions about the founding of America, the Founding Fathers, the drawing up of the Constitution. I will ask them what was going on in the Colonies at the time that lead to upheaval and ultimate revolt. They can cite things like taxation without representation, quartering of troops. I ask them if they had heard about folks being rounded up for voicing their displeasure over the king’s governance, unlawful imprisonments, or people having their guns confiscated, etc. No. No. No. I next turn to the Constitution and ask them what is the First Amendment all about? What is the Second Amendment all about. They can pretty much cite what these state (usually get a limited treatment of “freedom of speech” and “you can own guns”. Then I ask them, Have you ever wondered what it says about the Founders and what they thought was important that these are first and second in the catalog of rights/protections that these once-shackled now freed folks came up with, what they were most concerned about.
They sit for a moment and then I’ll start to see little light bulbs going on. I look around the room, hopeful that some of them have just turned an important corner.