>The guarantee against tyranny lay squarely within ArticlesI-VII.
That really has worked well. I'm sure the NSA is super scared of some some words on the paper and a worthless judiciary. Again, by your standard, the Soviet Union had the most free society ever because it promised so much freedom in its constitution.
I can also pull tons of work from the time of ratification about protection against tyranny by the people through revolution. You know the famous Jefferson quotes, so I guess he was influenced by old timmy as well. When force comes to bear, they were smart enough to realize there is nothing law that can protect the people. "People" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection.
Do you really think it impossible at some future time that the government may go tyrannical? Take the long view of history, every republic to this point ends in tyranny.
Additional point: I like how you cut out my post about your approach being completely indeterminate and without a limiting principle. Why can't Lochner be passed by the same right of privacy, besides of course, your disagreement with the free market system?
Eight of the thirteen original states adopted bills of rights prior to the ratification of the federal constitution. Each had a provision concerning the right of militias and arms. These declarations formed the basis of the Second Amendment, and none of the declarations remotely implied that the right to bear arms is related in any way to overthrowing a tyrannical government. Their stated purpose is just the opposite. It is to defend the state, not overthrow it. They were opposed to standing armies and recognized that the militias, consisting of free and able men, be under the control of civil authority. Pennsylvania and Vermont extended the right to include self-defense, but this language was omitted by the other states and rejected by the Fathers when drafting the Amendment.
It's interesting to note that there was no intent on the part of the founding fathers to include a Bill of Rights as they thought that the state constitutions were adequate. Anti-federalists complained and so the Bill of Rights was drafted. But in the discussions for the second Amendment, various reasons were put forth for the amendment. The frontier states were concerned about attacks from outside the borders by Indians. George Mason of Virginia expressed the southern states' having to defend against possible insurrections from the slaves(Talk about having a reason to oppose a tyrranical government, the slaves had the best cause). While the declaration of Independence which is not a legal document, correctly identifies an inalienable right to sever the bonds from an oppressive regime, that right is not imbedded in the Second Amendment and has never been interpreted as the reason for the Second Amendment.
