The fact that off the cuff I can’t give you clear guidelines to a specific scenario, doesn’t change anything.”
Fair enough, sorry for putting you on the spot. 8ts an argument I’ve heard before which while fine in theory, falls apart quickly in practice. I was hoping you’d flesh it out a bit more.
“Do you agree that that is the intent of the second amendment?”
Without question no. For the first 2 centuries of existence it was understood as applying to states . The nra promoted this reinterpretation over the past decades,, and it was finally accepted by scotus in Heller .
There was no armed uprising (whiskey rebellion, John brown , waco) in which anyone saud hey they have a right to rebel, the givt is tyrannical.
Even the civil war, which WAS a state led rebellion this view was rejected by court
“But throwing in a specific instance and me not knowing the answer doesn’t do anything.”
It does, because it shows that your position is untenable. The idea that any individual person has constitutional right to rise up against the govt if he thinks they are tyrannical is a position that stretches the imagination to the point thst most would acknowledge it can’t be true.
Sure some would say it is true and some will prefer not to think about it. But it is far from a standard view.
I’m not trying to convince you of the wrongness of your view , that was not my intent in bringing up blm, or any extreme example
I don’t think its possible to change your mind. I’m just trying to understand your view and was curious if you’d be consistent or not