Assume that the historical evidence is clear that the Founding Fathers wrote and the States ratified the Second Amendment, in part, to protect the natural right of citizens to self-defense and to resist and depose a despotic and tyrannical government. However, recent case law has strayed from the original meaning of the Amendment. The Federal Government has passed a law the prohibits citizens from owning "weapons of war," including those types of weapons used by the standing army to quell insurrections, namely fully-automatic rifles, field canons, tanks, missiles, and aircraft. The State of Confusion, the newly admitted 52nd state, has an active citizen militia that trains every year for two weeks in preparation for its own defense. The state does not sanction the militia. The Federal Government caught the members of the militia attempting to purchase various intercontinental ballistic missiles, like the ones used by the Federal Government. The Federal Government tried and convicted the militia members for violating the federal law. On appeal, the militia members challenge the constitutionality of the law, claiming that it violates their natural right to self-defense and to depose a despotic government, when and if that becomes necessary. Discuss the validity of their claims.