Honest question: Does the current situation in the US clarifies as a tyrannical government enough to justify using the 2nd amendment ?

Because if the current situation does not qualify, I think it's just a strawman argument.

I mean much of the reason we've been told that we have to put up with school, theater, concert, mall, etc massacres by firearms and the most gun deaths/injuries is that their existence is justified as THE means of stopping government oppression. We've been told this by politicians, celebrities, pundits, and many gun owners of every stripe.

If they're not going to be used to stop government oppression, and bear in mind, shooting/beating people who are peacefully protesting, standing on their porch doing nothing, or recording police activity and coordinating efforts to arrest journalists would be called that if it were in any other country, then clearly they're not the solution.

Several people have already been injured or killed by the police in several places. It seems awfully convenient that we have to wait until groups of people are being mowed down by machine guns all over the country to fit the definition of tyranny now. And even then, I don't believe the 2A crowd will step in; they didn't when Kent State was going down. They didn't step in during jim crow.

And if the speaker doens't believe any situation justifies that, than it's just arguing in bad faith.

What's arguing in bad faith is using made up scenarios you won't ever commit to as a way to justify common, easy ownership of deadly weapons that you actually own because you just like having them or they act as a personal comfort blanket for you.

/r/neoliberal Thread