Exactly, thanks!

I think (and this person can correct me if I'm wrong, it's really how I understood it) the idea was: despite all the 2A theory of "we need guns to defend from tyrannical government, and yes, if it were to happen I'd take up arms" the US is (not so slowly anymore) sliding toward the tyrannical government and we saw no usage of 2A to fight against it.

Again, 20% of the left is armed or lives with someone who is armed... nearly %60 is the right...the right is driving this fascist bullshit. No wonder it's not being used.

Y>our point could be right: it's because people with the gun generally agree with the government, so no reason to use 2A.

Exactly.

Next question is: even if all leftist were armed, would we start to see ICE agent being shot? No idea.

If ICE starts shooting people, you better bet there would be return fire.

Oh and, on another note, to compare the US and Myanmar is NOT a good comparison from any point of view.

I didn't compare it to the USA at all. I stated that they're population was not armed and they still have a civil war happening. Which is counter point to the guy stating that civil wars don't happen if civs aren't armed like in his country. Which is bullshit.

Myanmar was heavily restricted on access to firearms. It's why the 3d printed guns were used a ton early on before the free people could get access to firearms. The junta has relaxed this for supporters of the regime, but saying that they were armed is a bit of a stretch.

is this a strawman or just intentionally obtuse?

You acted like civil wars happen because the population is armed...so no it wasn't a strawman it was to point out that you're ignorantly wrong.

aaahh there we go, conspiratorial anti "the media" shit that i usually expect from the good ol 2A crowd.

Says the guy who lives in a different country and assumes how the usa is going to be in a civil war because we're armed...keep your nose in your own countries business. What we do here doesn't effect you.