[TheZMan]

1st question - Yes.

2nd question - As many as is needed to be successful. When all else fails, superior force tends to overtake opposition.

3rd question - Strawman of strawmans. How about the last 50 years of non-representation? I’d say that constitutes tyranny.

In summary - keep it up.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

— “Do you believe that the Second Amendment provides individuals with a right to shoot and kill government officials when they deem our government has become ‘tyrannical’?

Unequivocally, YES YES YES!

— “If one or two individuals who believe our government is ‘tyrannical’ are not enough, how many individuals does it take to make political violence against our government legitimate?

I’ll go with several million that have marched, protested, cried out at town hall meetings and the tens of millions more that empathize/sympathize with them but were unable to do so.

— Finally, how would the NRA define government ‘tyranny’? Does having to live with health care reform that one disagrees with constitute being ‘attacked by politicians’?”

When you’re decreeing I must participate in your program or face jail time and fines? I define that as tyranny.

[BerserkPatriot]

Interesting that the National Socialists have given up on the ‘Gun Safety’ and ‘It's for the Children’ memes and switched to a “How dare they oppose our benevolent Tyranny” ,Line of BS.