Yes, self-sufficiency is the enemy of the Modern American Left.

Off topic, but this seemed more generally apropos - a discussion on the Modern British Left:

There was a disaster in the thinking of the Left, and progressive people in general. The question was, what to do with that disaster?

[...]

And then there's a fourth position, the one which is most problematical for those of us who are Jews or who make common cause with Jews in the fight against anti-Semitism. It is a kind of impure nihilism, a kind of destructive fury or a perpetuation of the antagonisms of the pre-1989 Left, but without any balancing constructive project, so one continues in one's war against America as if the Cold War still existed and the Soviet system still existed. But because there is no real alternative, one is led into more and more extreme gestures of anger and hatred and violence.

The idea that Founders allowed for private gun ownership as a safeguard against Tyranny does not make sense.
1) Individual guns might hinder a foreign invasion but a domestic tyranny arises from the public opinion. One can say that right now, the Govt is pretty tyrannical with all those rules and regulations hindering this and that and add taxes and add infringements on religious liberty.
But one does not see any private gun owner using his guns to oppose the creeping tyranny. Even the idea is risible.
The domestic tyranny comes with support of 50%.
2) No constitution would come up with a suicide clause. It would be absurd to include a insurrection clause in the constitution.

The private guns exist in the republic as to help maintain the state of laws, i.e. to oppose outlaws.
It is incredibly silly to think that the guns exist to oppose police and the Law. Citizens can only oppose police by Public Arguments i.e in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.

It may be said that the right to self-defense is inalienable and prior to the republic.
But my opinion is that nothing is prior to the State esp the Individual or the Family.
Thus the outlaw has no right to self-defense.

a domestic tyranny arises from the public opinion

No, it can arise from a rather small group. Witness the effect of Global Warmening. Or POR-care. More over, even with creeping regulation you can still have one or a small number of people resist to put the issue in stark enough contrast for a majority to change. Further, you've just disproved the existence of the American Revolution (read the Declaration of Independence to see that). The Founders in contradistinction strongly believed that event to have occurred and took lessons from it.

Gun control is more of a spiritual issue than one of actually fighting against a tyranny. Tyrannies generally arise when people feel weak or confused or powerless. They start small and grow--but if people resist the first few encroachments with stubbornness, the tyranny probably won't get far.

And owning firearms works a spiritual effect on people. You ponder the possibility of killing for your beliefs or your freedom, and you are strengthened. And your feelings affect those who would like to bully you; they sense your strength and are more likely to back down.

"It may be said that the right to self-defense is inalienable and prior to the republic.
But my opinion is that nothing is prior to the State esp the Individual or the Family.
Thus the outlaw has no right to self-defense."

Spoken like a slave and a socialist.

Like Aristotle actually.

AOG,
Global warming is all public opinion. Do you want to combat the global warming scare by guns?

Ah, gun ownership makes tyranny a matter of public opinion, rather than simply might. That's the point. That's why global warmening is fading here and never really caught on.

"Like Aristotle actually."

That doesn't make it the slightest bit less slavish and debased.

Do you deny the right of State to demand sacrifices from individuals to defend itself?

Do you deny the right of State to split families?
To take away an abused child from his parents or an abused wife from her husband?

Of course I deny it. What you are writing is absurd. "The state" has no rights; it is a legal fiction, like a corporation.

Only people can have rights. The people create a state as a mere utilitarian instrument to do their collective will.

So Lincoln and Roosevelt were immoral in drafting hundreds of thousands of men?.
That all family courts are immoral?

You confuse State with Govt.
Govt is a instrument but not State. You smuggle in State when you say "their collective will."
The Libertarian denies that there are any collective wills.

The State is defined by Aristotle as
Material cause: people along with the territory
Formal Cause: the Constitution
Efficient Cause: The law-giver
Final Cause: Happiness of the People.

AOG,
Global warming is fading everywhere, even in countries without guns and gun rights.

Bisaal,
When you have to shoehorn the facts into your theory, and then the theory produces absurd results, then you are wasting your time with a bad theory.

The outlaw has the right to self defense because that right is given to us by God. But other rights that also come ultimately from God, such as the right to form a government to secure our rights, can conflict with this, and so we must use moral reasoning to decide how to resolve differences.

Congress (not Lincoln or Roosevelt) voted for a draft because those men and women had weighed conflicting moral imperatives, and came to a decision. You can call them "the state," if you wish, but that obscures rather than illuminates the real issue, which always comes down to moral choices made by individuals.

You seem to gravitate towards ideas that will somehow make this unnecessary. Won't work.

The only rightful thing for an outlaw is to surrender to the law.

The idea that people should go about in the cities as if equipped for the battle, this idea is either
a) realistic or
b) nihilistic

a) means that American cities are really battlefields and are not cities, properly speaking.
The person having this idea should properly be regretful and not triumphant
b) if he is triumphant, and he carries about his weapons not regretfully but proudly, then he is a nihilist. He may be a flaming conservative but a nihilist, nonetheless, since he does not regret that his city has turned into a battlefield, that he dare not trust his neighbors, that the State of Laws has broken down.
In short, he hates the idea of State of Laws, and prefers the State of Nature--that is, he is a libertarian crazy.

Bisaal,

You seem to be be in a realm of theory rather than reality. But you never say what your theory is. It seems to be something strangely binary, with only black and white, and no shades of grey.

"a) means that American cities are really battlefields and are not cities, properly speaking. "

Says who? Shakespeare's London and Michaelangelo's Florence and Rome were often violent, and men there commonly carried swords and daggers. "the idea of State of Laws, and prefers the State of Nature--that is, he is a libertarian crazy." Ben Jonson and Dante, libertarian crazies! This is silly. One can arm oneself against potential dangers AND be regretful that this is necessary AND probably never have to us ones weapon. That's the most common thing, in real American life.

In real life things are often a mixture of good and bad. And the places that are vibrant and spiritually alive are often lively in a bad way too.

I proceed from the standard definitions of State of Law, State of Nature and State of War.
While much of the discussion on this topic is based on absurdities such as a right said to be enshrined in the Constitution, the right of an individual to resist the State tyranny.

In a (perfect) state of laws, our person and property are secured by laws.
Thus any necessity of arming ourselves for self-defense is an imperfection in the state of laws and this imperfection ought to be regretted.
A haughty attitude is uncalled for in a republic and is contrary to the republican spirit

"The only rightful thing for an outlaw is to surrender to the law."

Bullshit!

The Jews were outlawed in Germany (And most of Europe for that matter.) within living memory. Should they have surrendered to the law?

"I proceed from the standard definitions of State of Law, State of Nature and State of War"

"Standard" to who? Is this more of your Aristotle malarky? Why should anyone care? There are no such things in the real world. Nothing you have written here teaches anything useful.

Should they have surrendered to the law?
An unjust law is no law.

Bisaal, this is thinking from before the Information Age. People used to try to understand things by jamming them in a single category. But this was because it was hard to process a lot of information, not because that's the best way to think.

"An unjust law is no law" is an example. Most laws are in fact complex mixes of good and bad, justice and injustice. They have ramifying unintended consequences, and they interact in unexpected ways with other laws and social forces.

Plus we have no common definition of what is an unjust law. The statement is meaningless.