[Texas Federalist]

And if the state is part of a so called government tyranny does that mean that the militia is also.

Not the actual militia, which was simply the populace at large. One of the arguments in the Emerson case was based on the fact that "the Militia" as defined at the time the BOR passed, meant the entire populace. The argument equating the national guard to the militia is not a proper analogy because there was a group that performed similar functions to our current police forces, national guard or army reserve, called the "select militia". Clearly, the founders intended the "militia" in the second amendment to mean every citizen capable of carrying a weapon.

[smoketree]

Exactly.

[Dead Corpse]

Clearly, the founders intended the "militia" in the second amendment to mean every citizen capable of carrying a weapon.

Further, that such a Right was so fundamental to remaining free men, that even those not subject to militia call up were to be afforded protection for this Right.

Pretty basic really. It's only when gun grabbers and lawyers start trying to find ways around it that things get messy.

[epow]

There is a very interesting excerpt from a book by Constitutional historian and author Stephen Halbrook HERE that sheds new light, new to me at least, on questions ranging from the original proposals for the text of the amendment to the proper interpretation of the amendment in it's final form. I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about how the amendment came to be an integral part of the BOR and how much importance should be attached to it today.