That's right! The question is which direction that tyranny would come from? The founders weren't worried that they themselves would direct that tyranny, so they placed the "Army Clause" in Article 1, Section 8. The states demanded the Bill of Rights as a precondition to ratification. They were worried that the officer corps of a large standing army posed that threat - something that a civilian militia wouldn't.
The body of the Constitution states that the government only posses the power granted by the enumerated rights in the document. The 2nd Amendment makes the formation of a militia by the government constitutional - you can even see this in this our governments response to external threats prior to WWII. We maintained a small, relatively weak federal army that was bolstered by large volunteer militia formations.
The paranoia of the government to a great extent was a product of the 1960s. So too is the idea that Americans must be armed to the teeth to hold a hostile federal government at bay. At least own your paranoia
@Injun - the Founders weren't worried that they would hold a gun to their own heads.
We are way past the Founders now. They never envisioned a government with millions of pages of regulations, taxes and laws.
Regardless, you did not address the deliberate use of the word "People" in the Second Amendment in comparison to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
First Amendment: .....the right of the
People peaceably to assemble... Does that refer to government sponsored entities?
Fourth Amendment: The right of the
People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects.... Does the word "People" refer to government sponsored entities?
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
People.....Does the word "People" refer to government sponsored entities?
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
People....Does the word "People" refer to government sponsored entities?
(I did not include the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because the terminology used is "No Person," which cannot be argued to refer to some government organization, yet clarifies even more sharply the term "People" meaning specifically "Individuals.")
The original verbiage of the Second Amendment stated: "A well regulated militia,
composed of the body of the People..." clearly indicates the population at large was considered to be potential militia members and, therefore, individuals had the right to keep and bear arms. The original words also go on to say there wasn't a
requirement to keep and bear arms. The guys who discussed this apparently didn't think they would have to spell this stuff out in detail, so they dropped what they considered to be superfluous jibber-jabber.
Who would have thought that one word, "People," could be construed to mean "government sponsored entities only" in one Amendment, yet obviously refer to regular old population members (individuals) in the rest?