The constitution is fragile. The 7th Amendment protects us from round-ups, but it didn't stop the round-up of the Japanese during WW2. It did not end up in their extermination, but it did leave an astounding precedent; the government can suspend parts of the constitution as they see fit.
You still haven't articulated an argument, other than "the [C]onstitution is fragile." Which could mean anything. What it appears you are really trying to argue is that "if the government crosses the threshold of acceptable malleability of the constitution and into tyranny then we'll have no other choice." The "no other choice" is the use of violence against law enforcement or military personnel that attempt to enforce those laws.
It's a specious argument. I'm going to skip jumping through all the hoops, but essentially, what you are arguing is that you reserve the right to kill law enforcement and/or military personnel when they attempt to enforce laws that you believe have crossed the "acceptable malleability" of the constitution into "tyranny."
The terms you use "acceptable malleability" and "tyranny" are sufficiently vague and open to interpretation that the argument is almost meaningless. It could range from the obvious -- if your government is exterminating you Hitler style, then you can fight back. To the truly disturbing -- if you think it's "tyranny" to require background checks for guns, you are entitled to start shooting if they insist on enforcing the waiting period.
I'd recommend that anyone who thinks that way -- that people are entitled to armed, violent resistance when they disagree with the law -- to skip tonight's militia meeting and instead brush up on the philosophical underpinnings of a republican form of government. Because you really don't understand it.
