I think that their argument is that this is the only concrete realization possible of the abstract Second Amendment fantasy.

The Second Amendment fantasy is that you should own guns, so that you can kill people in the government and who are adjacent to the government. That means shooting real people with real bullets to kill them.

I think their reply is a criticism of the Second Amendment fantasy, rather than a remark that this is a worthwhile avenue for fighting fascism.

As others have pointed out, Charlie Kirk built a career on the Second Amendment fantasy, even explicitly delineating Democrats as targets he believes are acceptable to shoot and kill.

That said, I do disagree with the assumption that the shooter is necessarily opposed to the Trump administration or even to Charlie Kirk's rhetoric.

https://youtu.be/0r_xc09q9vo

There is irony in an authoritarian majority supporting an oppressed minorities' ability to commit political violence.

While the cost of the second amendment is high, it might prove to be a better political stress release valve than I thought.

If anything, I wonder if the increased political violence will eventually cause conservatives to reconsider their lack of support for Red Flag laws.

> The Second Amendment fantasy

Straw man. Maybe that's your fantasy?

[flagged]