[papertyger]

The question remains: What if the president were a despot and the military chose to submit to his authority. It happens all the time in third world countrys.

Well that's what the Second Amendment is for, now isn't it?

You're not going to find a document that covers all contingencies guy. You can ask if G-d can make a rock so big even He can't move it, but it's not incumbent on me to take the question seriously.

I'm providing a reasonable, logical, rationale to preserve the utility and relevance of the Second Amendment for the individual American in a time when weapons exist that could permit a single individual to accomplish the destruction it used to take an entire army to accomplish. Take it, or leave it. Your choice.

That being said, the Second Amendment is a "spare tire." The Constitution is not intended to keep you going if you wrap your car around a pole.

[Bear_Slayer]

Your original statement was: No military force is allowed in the United States that is not subject to the President of the United States.

So what are you really saying?

A person can use the 2A to defend himself from a despot government, but once he organizes into a private army, he needs to submit to the POTUS or disband

Right or worng we gotta submit to the constitution; "It says what it says." /sarc