[TameAntelope]

It often matters to the people making these statements, is my point.

I haven't expressed my opinion about it, I'm just saying that the folks suggesting using firearms to "stop tyranny" very rarely know what they're actually saying.

Some do.

[axguscbklp]

Psychologically I think it is very easy to resolve any possible contradictions. "My side are the real patriots - their side are false patriots who are actually bootlickers/oppressors/occupiers/traitors/etcetera."

[TameAntelope]

I think you're getting wrapped up in the word choice here. Someone espousing these beliefs is supporting the killing of cops and soldiers, an act which is very often reprehensible in the same circles.

[axguscbklp]

I think that most people who generally support cops and soldiers but who also contemplate violent resistance against the US government have already thought through this issue and their usual resolution is "I generally support cops and soldiers for now but if they cross certain lines then I am fine with fighting against them". I do not think that there is nearly as much cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy on this topic among those people as you might think there is.

[TameAntelope]

I disagree, I believe the vast majority of people (including the person I replied to here) who believe in using firearms to "prevent tyranny" don't understand that what they're saying means they'd have to kill cops and soldiers.

They tend to believe the threat is enough and that they'd never have to act on their threat (rendering it meaningless), or that all of the cops/soldiers will just let them kill the politicians (and killing a politician for a differing political belief is somehow generally okay for these folks).