I don't understand

I really and truly do not understand people who say the "right to bear arms" is one of our most important constitutional right because it guards against foreign and domestic tyranny.

The short answer for why I do not buy the arguments for it is that nations from a similar tradition without this right, such as Canada and Australia, seem to be doing just fine without it. I did not include England because it is obviously tyrannical, being England, after all. "Not buying" the argument is a much weaker condition than not understanding.

I cannot understand why this would be seen as guarding against foreign tyranny because we have a standing army and spend more on national defense than all other nations combined. Other nations, despite lacking the protection of this apparently fundamental right, seem to manage for themselves for the most part. In the case of America, our defense against foreign tyranny is about projection of force, not guerrilla warfare. In nations with some risk of being invaded, arms have a way of getting around when needed and they won't be the pistol you keep for home defense.

Defense against domestic tyranny makes even less sense. First, the only instances of putting down domestic tyrants in American history have been the federal government putting down tinpot dictators, such as when several states in the south tried to rebel and installed their own treasonous government. Or in several instances in southern states when the National Guard (viz: the militia) had to be called up to guarantee the enforcement of certain federal laws about desegregation. Of course, the other side of the argument could point out that we have not had problems with domestic tyranny because of widespread firearm ownership. Canada and Australia, similar nations from the same heritage, however, do not constitutionally protect the right to bear arms and seem to be doing just as well, if not better, on the tyranny front. After all, Canada abolished slavery before America and did so without a rebellion. Setting aside those differences, however, private citizens with whatever arsenal they typically have would be overrun completely by the military in case of a fight against tyranny.

In the case of domestic tyranny, there is also the question of when, exactly, these lovers of freedom deem it appropriate "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" and what, exactly, they will do then. One can argue in good faith that Obamacare or the PATRIOT Act are worse in some sense than the "Intolerable Acts". Does this make armed revolution a reasonable response to the Bush and Obama administrations? Where does the line get drawn? How does your gun defend against domestic tyranny? I have severe cognitive difficulties interpreting the charter of the United States as providing an option for armed revolt by private citizens as a last defense against its own government. If anything, one might be able to read it as suggesting the states constituting the USA have that privilege, but that interpretation was discredited after several states tried to invoke that option.

Mind you, this is not an argument about whether the second amendment is good or bad or about whether the government can take your guns or even about whether a gun is good for defending your home. This is a discussion about whether private gun ownership guards against domestic and foreign tyranny.