I've read with interest the public debate of gun ownership to protect us against a tyrannical government, yet I have not seen any attempt to determine who gets to define tyrannical, nor what defines a "well regulated militia."
It seems to me that one thing our founders insisted upon was promoting a system of checks and balances. Therefore, I believe they would have expected that any "well regulated militia" would have a system of governance with legislative and/or legal review.
Our history is quite full of instances of unregulated citizens, emboldened with guns, superimposing their minority political views on the majority. I cite the well-documented oppression of African-Americans in the South during the post-Civil War era as evidence of such tyrannical actions.
If individuals or groups are free to define who or what government is tyrannical, without control, aren't we conceding that assassins are acting within their constitutional rights to define and fight tyrants?
While our system of governance is not perfect, and sometimes injustices take time to be overturned, our system of "checks and balances" has worked.
I prefer this system to the use of arms to settle political issues.
Whether you embrace a spiritual faith and/or lifestyle, or choose not to, we all need to respect the contributions of all people. Allow for the possibility that the other person may be right, that they too share a desire to make things better, that they too love this country and that positive change can occur if we acknowledge that our society is richer with a diversity of people and ideas.
Edward King
Clifton Park