> I disagree with your limitation of 'not used to promote tyranny' - that is not a limitation present in the wording I didn't mean to imply that that is the on

> I disagree with your limitation of 'not used to promote tyranny' - that is not a limitation present in the wording I didn't mean to imply that that is the only regulation citizens should exercise over each other's use of arms. Obviously citizens should also be regulating each other's use of arms to prevent private crime, since that is also a threat to the security of a free state. > They've delegated that regulation to their state or locale, by means of voting and legislation. First, no such delegation can violate the 2nd Amendment, since the Constitution, as amended, is the supreme law of the land. It limits how much citizens can delegate. Second, what happens if the government they have delegated to becomes tyrannical, and stays that way despite changes in voting and legislation? What is the citizens' last resort? To resist the tyrannical government using their own individually borne arms. In other words, any such delegation can always be revoked, and the citizens have to have some last resort way of making the revocation good if the government refuses to accept it. > And then they get told they can't. Nobody has told them that. See above.