I think you’re projecting that I’m judging you. And that’s a perfectly reasonable projection given the history of polarized politics. But you are incorrect.
I am, however, trying to pin the original poster down on an opinion.
It was quite obvious in going back and forth with him that I did not understand him. I read his original piece as absolutely advocating for the potential of violent insurrection and so I wanted to know the guidelines for when a group of citizens should apply this option. And that allowed him to correct me.
In your case, I’m not sure you are in agreement with the OP. And so I ask again, out of curiosity, as a fan of the 2nd amendment, at what point do you think American citizens should take this option?
As a concrete example of the depth to which you’ve misunderstood me, please let me highlight your ending sentence:
Maybe the only reason you don’t understand why someone would need to defend themselves is because you’re privileged and have lived a safe and cozy life without any real threats of violence against you by authorities
I’ve specifically given an example of a situation that is currently either in or near the severity that would call for an armed response. Therefore I do understand.
BTW, as a style note, you use questions as a rhetorical device and I use questions to ask questions.
So this sentence is just a question, not an argument one way or the other. I think that contributes to your misunderstanding.
Does black gun ownership (or perceived ownership) help discourage government oppression?