" wrote:

The idea that the right to bear arms was given so that the people
could overthrow a tyranical gov't (a gov't that didn't have it's
own standing army) is hogwash when that same constitution also has
a clause defining treason.

No it's not.

Yes it is.

Because the same folks who wrote the constitiution also did exactly
that just years before. They overthrew a tyranical govt.

Then why would those noble, libertarian people write it into their new
constitution that it is "illegal" to commit treason against their new
gov't?

Why wouldn't they make treason legal?

Or at least strike any mention of treason out of their new constitution?