Setting aside the debate over whether less guns = less crime, I wonder how proponents of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right to protect oneself or act as a check against tyranny can defend those positions given the origins of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution's text. The Bill of Rights was demanded by the anti-Federalists because they felt the Constitution needed more checks against the federal government's powers. Is there any evidence that AFs wanted the 2A because they feared the FG banning firearms use for self defense against bandits?

An esoteric point that illuminates a key point: a land value tax (#LVT) is not a tax; rather, it is a method to remove a subsidy, which is the price of land. Passing an LVT is akin to repealing a subsidy payment to landowners not wanting to pay the current market value of land. What is the key point? If an LVT repeals a subsidy, then we can sidestep discussion about whether it is a "progressive tax" or not. Rather, we can then frame the discussion around whether repealing the subsidy is a progressive move.