I view the 2nd as an internal check (part of the checks and balances) on the government. The right to have means to revolt under tyranical rule. I might guess that most TFL members view this differently and relate the 2nd as a right to defend themself from other individuals.
fisherman66,
I would not disagree with this statement in the least. The 2nd does preserve in the body of the people the capacity to overthrow their own government, thus the militia language. This should come as no surprise as the men who debated and proposed the 2nd Amendment, and the society that subsequently ratified the same, had just recently gained their liberty from England by force of arms. Private arms in private hands played a significant role in our war of Independence as exemplified by such pivotal engagements as the Battle of Saratoga and the Battle of Cowpens.
I would say, however, the idea that a people have a right to overthrow their government is grounded in the Lockean conceptualization of natural rights and it is very hard to argue that this view of a just revolution is not precisely the same as that expressed in our Declaration of Independence which contained language lifted almost directly from John Locke's
Two Treatises of Government.
The justification for revolution is the infringement of our natural rights and the means to restore our liberty is found in the private ownership of arms. The fact, as you have correctly ascertained, that our own government now habitually tramples over our unalienable rights makes the vigorous and indefatigable enforcement of the 2nd Amendment all the more important to the security of our liberty.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
Thomas Jefferson
If I where to disagree with your, then that would place me in the rather uncomfortable position of also disagreeing with Mr. Jefferson. Happily, I agree.
Best Regards,
Richard