Kleist's Michael Kohlhaas and the Second Amerndment

To be honest Heinrich von Kleist's story or short novel Michael Kolhaas is probably better though/talked/written about than actually read. Despite a promising start, in which the eponymous horse dealer is badly mistreated by a wealthy landowner and then rebuffed in all attempts to get justice through the official channels (because the landowner, Junker Wenzel, I think) is connected through family and politics). So in the second half of the story MK gathers some of his own men and sets off to attack Wenzel directly. His troupe slays everyone on  Wenzel's estate, though W himself escapes, and captures the horses that W had illegally seized. Had MK left things right there, he would have gotten revenge (and restoration of property) without getting full justice (including payment to the family of a servant killed in defense of the horses), but there'd be no story, either. In fact, MK builds an ever stronger army that eventually sacks a # of German cities suspected of offering shelter to the fleeing Wenzel - leading to a huge pllitical crisis, involving none other than Martin Luther (the setting is 16th-century German), who at first blasts MK as diabolical but later, following MK's entreaties, writes that MK should be protected until his case can be adjudicated. These plot machinations taking up +100 pp., and the going is tedious in the extreme for any reader - eventually I reverted to skimming, a real rarity for me. That said, the story raises fascinating questions still relevant today (and certainly relevant in Kleist's lifetime, just 20 years of so after the French Revolution): When are the oppressed justified in taking up arms against an established government, if ever? To me this story raises questions facing us today re the 2nd Amendment: American's have the "right to bear arms," but is that right secured in order to join, as a militia, in the defense of the established government of in order to form a militia to protect against a government violation of individual rights? (I would argue the former.) What is the difference, and how do we discern the difference, between a patriotic stance against an encroaching federal government and an act of treason (as in the land seizures in the West)? It makes no sense that the Constitution (as amended) would grant to citizens the right to take up arms against the government that Constitutional government - although clearly many people, for whatever reason, believe otherwise. This story, the "pro-gun" lobby, would provide some informative reading about the cost and danger society might face if confronted by an armed citizen attack arising from an unfavorable judgement in court.