blackhawk,
thats what you consider, but that is
not what the consitution or the second amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
or from the constitution:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
or all of the judgement in US vs Miller :
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=307&invol=174
The only argument that you could make is that the reliance upon the militia,
as opposed to the establishment of a standing army which was considered "tyrannical" and which was specifically targetted against in the Constitution and opposed by Adam Smith.
Your RKBA exists for the defence of the state, not defence from the state.