I think your musings are interesting and rather relevant, notably the statement I've highlighted. The primary purpose of our Constitution is to restrain government from interfering with the citizen's right to "moral agency" (aka "freedom). Pres. Obama lamented this, rightly calling it a document of "negative rights" because of its explicit restraint on - not our freedom- but government freedom. The rights specified in it are God-given, but they imply (IMHO) commensurate obligations of individual citizens to protect those rights and prevent tyranny. This point was well made by @jerichoo777, as cited below. But, I'd like to provide the following amplifications.
This duty, we may note, has actually been codified (variously) for the purposes of administering the oath of office to our representatives (politicians), the oath of service for our military personnel, AND (rather significantly) the "Oath of Allegiance" made by naturalized citizens. All of these must swear to "support and defend the Constitution". It seems rather unlikely that an argument could be crafted that it somehow this duty doesn't apply to the rest of us. IF we had preserved basic education in American History, Civics, Ethics, Philosophy, Rhetoric and Reason, we'd know better than to think this is duty can be shirked without consequence. One might say, the repercussions of that (like removing prayer from school) was more-or-less "baked in the cake" (per Galatians 6:7).
This duty doesn't (technically, by law) exist in any other country, where rights are granted by and can be revoked by the government. Some other countries have attempted to adopt versions of the US Constitution model, but have always failed to incorporate (or preserve) the cohesive logic and, more importantly, the underlying foundation of the document, notably best described by John Adams:
“Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams, Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798.
As we have become, along with the rest of the world, an amoral and a non-religious people, the precepts of our Constitution are failing (and/or have failed). But, it remains (technically) the law of the land and if Christians are to obey the supreme law of the land - which was intended to protect their right to obey God Himself - we need to take that into consideration. Not that the sort of resistance that may be required would prevent being squished like a bug. It almost certainly guarantees it.
I'd add one more (albeit provocative) thought. I've read here (often enough) that using lethal force against criminals (or tyrants) would lead to the death of those who (ostensibly) might be converted. That's simply a logical fallacy. The principal justification for such violence is to prevent them from taking that freedom (to choose and/or obey God) from their victims, including oneself.
ing that God brings more workers to add to the ones faithfully doing so. 
