“At issue is whether the Bill of Rights empowers the state to organize an army to keep you subdued or whether it guarantees you the right to arm yourself against the oppression of the state.”
This is absolutely correct although I prefer the word tyranny to oppression. (a minor point)
The bill of rights is intended to empower ‘the people’.
These rights are NOT bestowed upon ‘the people’(that’s us)by the state.
Contrarily, it is the people that bestows power upon the state.
At the very beginning of our Constitution it says:
‘We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, ...’
The State is intended to be a servant of ‘the people’ NOT the other way around.
A ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people,..” (Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address)
To the extent the State no longer represents the people, to the extent the State subverts the bill of rights, to THAT (aforementioned)extent the state has become tyrannical, in that it is misusing the power that we the people have bestowed upon it.
... And yes, the right to self defense is natural (some may argue God Given)and self evident.
The founding fathers show an understanding of natural law (extending from God) when they used the term ‘inalienable rights’ — in the Declaration of Independence.
STE=Q