‘Liability vs. (NRA) Martyrdom'

Subtitle: 'Hamilton's Stipulation'

Subjective: I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted: and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there’s no power to do?

Statement: "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”. . .

i.e. “the rights of the people shall not be infringed” as it's difficult to observe how any power should exist between a militia of Government & States when the driving force intended is the betterment of a free thinking ‘Universal’ citizenry?

Question: Is it right to place an “armed insurrection" in the form of a 'Second Amendment' when the founding fathers clearly sought as Hamilton’s contention when placing trust in the ordered liberty of a free thinking and knowledgeable 'Democratic' government. . ? ? ?