A justice might ask whether, if the purpose of the Second Amendment is for citizens to possess weapons to protect themselves from governmental intrusions on their liberty,
All of the writings of the Founding Fathers make it quite clear that they intended the general populace to be able to possess and be proficient with any type of small arms. At the time, that included swords as well as firearms, particularly since the British empire often banned them for occupied peoples.
Small arms were any arm that a militiaman or soldier could carry for long periods, along with the necessary ammo, and use without assistance. It would not have included crew-served weapons such as modern machine guns, just like it didn't included cannon then. It would, however, include everything from handguns, to small-caliber automatic "assault weapons", to high-powered hunting rifles. Anything that can be carried easily for long periods, and which does not kill indiscriminately (like grenades and bombs).
The intent was to provide for all self defense. Against criminals, against invaders, and yes, ultimately, against oppressive governments. There was no provision made for a professional police force, just as there was none made for a professional military. Citizens were expected to defend themselves against criminals. Only organized piracy was considered sufficient cause to involve government power; and even then, was typically handled by mobilizing citizen militias and sea-powers (the latter typically through letters of marque).
Clearly modern society requires some sort of police force, simply because the nature of crime has gone far beyond what an agrarian or mecantilistic culture could have produced. There must be a police force capable of adequately responding to large-scale organized crime. There is some debate about the necessity of a professional military vs. a strictly reservist-based force; but the nature of modern military technology effectively requires at least a small-scale professional force. However, the bulk of responsibility for self-defense and national defense rests in the citizenry.
does that imply that the citizens will also have the right to use those weapons against federal employees in the event the citizens feel that their liberty is being infringed? So if a federal officer detains you and you are quite sure that the federal officer has no reasonable grounds for doing so, are you entitled by the Second Amendment to shoot the officer?
This is one of those situations that the gun-banning crowd builds some of their most popular strawmen out of; taking things way out context and exaggerating it far beyond it's original intent.
Yes, strictly speaking, it is intended to allow
in extremis self defense against federal agents; when there is
no other option for redress available. The US is not, nor has it been, anywhere near extremis; and is not likely to be anytimes soon, despite the lunatic-fringe fear-mongering on both sides. Only when the government is truly tyrannical, when the Constitution is being abolished, and it no longer respects, let alone protects, human rights and liberties; is taking up arms against the government permissable.
At the current time, the federal officer who detains irresponsibly you faces disciplinary action, and government can be made to address such issues and provide recompense. There have been abuses of government power, but they have been the exception, not the norm, and have been rapidly brought to light. We are nowhere near the stage where secret abuses of government power are the norm. People are not being "disappeared" in the middle of the night, they are not having their property stolen without recompense as a matter of course, they are not being jailed or otherwise silenced merely for opposing the government.
The condition must be concrete and visible; not just extremist paranoia.
