Just wondering...AFAIK some in the USA are strong proponents of the right to bear arms. One of their arguments is that one day they might need these weapons to rise up against an oppressive (or otherwise dangerous?) regime.
I take it in such a situation they would find the use of intentional deadly force against (perceived loyalist) government agents (police, military) justified and well within their rights.
Not at all saying the current regime in the USA is oppressive, I'm wondering about where the boundaries are.
What methods are justified to protest in which kinds of situations?
Armed revolt isn't off the table per se.
What about lesser forms of violence?Blocking a road? Etc.
Again, I'm not endorsing any side or agreeing with current protests...I'm just wondering.