KK,
I think that what you are doing is looking to the wrong document for guidance.
The Declaration of Independence is our founding document, not the Constitution. The DoI boldly outlined the reasons for our separation from the Crown and the hows and whys for our desired manner and style of governance. In there you will find that we do have the right — and indeed the duty — to throw off an unjust government.
The Articles of Confederation was the first attempt at rules for the government to follow. When that proved ineffective, a new Constitution was written. It was intended as chains on the government. It didn’t grant rights. It didn’t get into philosophy. It simply delegated limited powers to the new central government. I’ve come to agree with the Federalists that the BoR was unncecessary and even a mistake.
We don’t need a penumbra or emanations from it. All rights are inherent in us as our birthright. A right need not be enumerated to be inalienably ours, but too many people have come to believe just that.
But that's not what I'm trying to do right now. I'm questioning "Whether or not "...those currently in positions of leadership (can) be expected to openly come out with such clarity if the Founders themselves were reluctant to..." (Posts 36 and 102)
That's in response to: semantic: "...we need to re-establish the concept that the People...have pre-existing rights to possess sufficient firepower...to challenge a potentially tyrannical government." (Post 7) and Leisler: "...the 2nd Amendment...is about the citizens having military weapons to attack and commit violence and killing upon tyrannical government forces." (Post 11) Nobody's addressing "those currently in positions of leadership". And note that I haven't come down on either side of the question. Also note that I'm not disagreeing with any of the rest of your Post 101.