KY
” Here to the law states that the citizenry has the right to overthrow a tyrannical government the application is the question”
So Ive given it more thought, and there are two separate points, that I conflated into one, thank you for setting me straight
1) There is no such law
2) Even if there were The court applies the law.
You list all sorts of variables for the knife case to try to obfuscate the issue (see not just me!). It really isnt complicated the law is (not a verbatim quote ) “No killing unless in self defense”
Who gets to decide what is self defense ? the court. easy.
You say the law allows for overthrow the government, if it is tyranical. Again who decides how tyrannical ? If they try to discourage mail in voting is that tyranical? IF they demand voter ID would that be tyrannical? “I said it certainly applies in a case where it is having its vote stolen” who decides if votes are stolen?” well I say: ” Trump stole votes in 2016! he is tyrannical!” Is that a magic phrase that lets me shoot him? NOTE: these aren’t questions for you. The court would decide. The court says “hey why’d you shoot the President,” I’d say, “well He came at me with a knife, my life was in danger” court says “how big etc…” And decides If my action was justified. OR I say “he stole the election,” court would ask for proof, I’d say “well it feels that way”, and court would decide if my action was justified
So back to Jan 6 Even if there were a law that said you have ” right to overthrow a tyrannical government” Who would decide when the government is tyrannical?. Again easy – the court. not you, not me. The court.
So the shirtless viking when he gets his day in court can argue I was fulfilling my second amendment right (The court of course would be confused by what he meant, and he will mention whatever scholarly explanation he digs up) but it is the court that interprets. IT isnt a magic get-out-of jail phrase that he can use.
“Perhaps the reason you cannot come up with any cases where the courts allowed arms Uprising against the government is because until now we never had a tyrannical government in the United States of America”
Fair enough, though hard to argue Locking up people based on their ethnicity wasn’t tyrannical. (Though court did allow it) You still could argue nobody tried using this secret magic interpretation of the 2nd amendment known only to some scholars, so it was never tested in court.
(as an aside as you may know there have been armed uprisings against “Tyrannical governments” sadly the rebels in those cases didn’t go to court , wit hone exception The court ruled in Texas v White in 1869 that there was no “right to secede” Its strange that there would be a “right to overthrow” but not secede. but I grant it is possible. ITs stranger still that they made no mention of the 2nd amendment it their arguments but again I guess that only gives right to ovetrhtrow not secede)
Hopefully one of the “insurgents” wil use the 2nd amendment in court, so we can get a ruling.
Sadly I don t think their lawyers will think of it .
Here’s’ hoping they read YWN coffee room!