So where in the Holy Second Amendment does it say anything about "gov't tyranny"?

[tama]

30. Very well

Layers disagree and twist their interpretations as is their profession, and no harm done becoming educated of those arguments. More generally, the question between "well regulated militia" vs "standing army" is very important. Little search brought this article:

http://www.kortexplores.com/node/110

Small excerpt:

The members of Congress had good reason to fear their own army only a little less than they feared the British. True to form, at the close of the war against the British, the officer corps of the Continental Army did attempt to betray the principles they had sworn to defend when they plotted to install Washington as monarch.

The moment when Washington refused the crown offered by the officer corps is possibly the single most critical moment in our nation's history. Every other revolution before and since has inevitably faced just such a moment of truth, and in every other case freedom and liberty have been betrayed. But Washington was a truly great man capable of vision far beyond his own personal interests.

In stark contrast to the lesser individuals who made up the officer corps, Washington truly believed in the principles he professed, and understood that those principles were far more important than the short sighted self-interest that so dominated the rest of the officer corps. Freedom survived the attempted treason of the officer corps only because Washington did what was unthinkable to the rest of the army leadership - he refused to betray his principles for personal gain.

Popular history continues to admit that Washington turned down the crown, but focuses entirely on the significance of Washington's actions and the personal integrity he demonstrated in refusing this great honor. Little attention is given to the hard fact that in spite of every effort by the Continental Congress, even the patriots who had gone to war to defend freedom and liberty were unable to resist the temptations of power.

While the attempted treason of the Colonial Army officer corps gets little attention from modern promilitary revisionists, it didn't go entirely unnoticed when it came time to write the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The attempted betrayal of the officer corps had confirmed the view that maintaining a standing army was too dangerous for a free nation to risk. The only military force that would not turn on the citizenry was one composed of the citizens themselves - a citizen militia.

I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions of the article, but it's also clear that NDAA is just another step in the long and gradual "military coup" by standing army and MIC, of which an US president warned more than 50 years ago. And as standing army (not all soldiers, but the institution) serves in the end those who pay them, they serve the banks and financial industry that can create money at will.

BTW I just read that in Ecuador a small tribe is ready to go all the way to defend their children's right for livable environment, against oil industry, government and army.