[jlawson]

>Why would a blueprint for a government install protections to make sure it can be violently overthrown, when the rest of the constitution is entirely focused on ensuring the consent of the people is funneled up to government power in a non-violent matter?

You're confused that the constitution has more than one kind of safeguard against tyranny?

"The idea that airbags are to prevent injuries is ridiculous. Why would a car have protections stop someone hitting the steering wheel, when there are also seatbelts entirely focused on ensuring that the driver doesn't hit the steering wheel?"

Also note that the guarantee of anti-tyranny violence makes it much less likely that someone's gonna try to do a tyranny in the first place. Compared to a disarmed and helpless population just waiting to be tyrannized.

A mugger is bound by law not to mug you. But he might do it anyway, regardless of what the paper says. However, if he knows you're armed, he's less likely to try. And if he does try, he's less likely to succeed.

[planetsprite]

The "defense against tyranny" argument for the 2nd amendment was borne out of individual regulated state militias defending against a federal army, not each individual being free to exercise their will as they see fit.

[_hyn3]

Are you asserting that the American Revolution was launched by "regulated state militias", as in: regulated by King George, or indirectly by his governors in the American colonies?