[licebmi__at__]

Leaving personal feelings about the person. What exactly does 2nd amendment guys think using guns to fight "tyranny" looks like? People rising up to a group of people clad on black clothes and an eerily fascist reminiscent symbol ala rickandmorty?

Some people using guns to defend themselves against who they believe are the harbingers of this authoritarian State is 2nd amendment working as intended. Not a "tragic but necessary sacrifice" as some will put school shootings, but actually what right to bear arms is supposed to be about.

And it's immaterial if you ultimately disagree to whether this administration is authoritarian, but these things will keep happening as long as enough people believe that to be the case. It's a feature, not a bug.

[account42]

You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.

[nobody9999]

>You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.

You mean people like Mohammed Khalil or Rumeysa Ozturk?

They weren't shot, but they were arrested, imprisoned without trial and threatened with expulsion for their opinions.

This isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife?" gotcha attempt. Rather, it's an attempt to point up that many of the folks (I'm emphatically not saying that you are one of those folks) who are making the same argument were all in favor of silencing Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk and even argued for stripping Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship because he had the temerity to run a successful primary campaign for mayor of NYC.

If we're (the general 'we') going to make the argument that free expression is important and that we should see differing opinions as a normal part of the process of society, we need to do so for everyone. Even (especially) those whose opinions are objectionable.

And so, as long as we're willing to make the same statements for everyone, I'm in 100% agreement with you.

Those who are only willing to make that argument WRT opinions with which they agree, and again I am emphatically not accusing you personally account42, are not acting in good faith or with intellectual honesty.

Unfortunately, there are far too many folks who fit that description. And more's the pity.

[blks]

Would an attack on Goebbels be seen as fighting the tyranny?

[orsenthil]

> You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run.

Why did Donald Trump order flags to be lowered to half-mast for 5 days for this media personality ?

[lynndotpy]

I think that their argument is that this is the only concrete realization possible of the abstract Second Amendment fantasy.

The Second Amendment fantasy is that you should own guns, so that you can kill people in the government and who are adjacent to the government. That means shooting real people with real bullets to kill them.

I think their reply is a criticism of the Second Amendment fantasy, rather than a remark that this is a worthwhile avenue for fighting fascism.

As others have pointed out, Charlie Kirk built a career on the Second Amendment fantasy, even explicitly delineating Democrats as targets he believes are acceptable to shoot and kill.

That said, I do disagree with the assumption that the shooter is necessarily opposed to the Trump administration or even to Charlie Kirk's rhetoric.

[perihelions]

Apropos, you can listen to Charlie Kirk answering that precise question, during the Biden presidency in 2021. (I assume Kirk is fairly a representative voice of the far-right movement?)

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisjustice01.bsky.social/post/3ly...

He was asked this question: "When do we get to use the guns?" "How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?" [sic]

I think it's best to watch his answer in full, and decide the nuances for yourself.

From my PoV, he agrees with the spirit of that comment. His response to "When to do we get to use the guns?" is to concede: "We *are* living under fascism. We *are* living under this tyranny" [sic]. In the context of that 2nd Amendment question about shooting tyrants, he identifies President Joseph Biden as a tyrant.

It's not ambiguous who these people think deserve to be shot.

I think it's highly remarkable that in that answer, Kirk actually never once condemns political violence. Listen to it and hear: not a word breathed to say killing political opponents is wrong, or immoral, or abhorrent to civics or American democracy, or, well: murder. His non-response is in a qualitatively different direction: he explains to the "When do we shoot them?" guy that murdering leftists would instigate a draconian law-enforcement response (by that same US government he had identified as "fascist" and "tyrannical"), and that that would set back far-right causes. That is, beginning to end, the entire substance of his response to "Why not shoot them?": fear of consequences.