There are other perspectives of that argument. 1) Many countries have codified freedom of speech, religion, expression. The deterrents to undermining those pro

There are other perspectives of that argument. 1) Many countries have codified freedom of speech, religion, expression. The deterrents to undermining those protections have nothing to do with armed citizens. 2) Populist uprisings in many countries contain caches of weapons at the time it is deemed fruitful. 3) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it legal for citizens to own guns. 4) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it illegal for nearly all citizens to own guns. 5) Can you elaborate on exactly what the role of armed citizens is in making sure the government doesn't undermine first amendment protections? The only thing I can think of is killing judges, hanging senators, shooting pencil pushers that enforce the administrative aspects of onerous regulations. Is that an accurate understanding of the argument?