Who decides whether or not someone is an immediate threat? Is "immediate threat" even the bar for a police officer to draw their weapon? Police can draw their weapons in situations civilians can't legally so I'm not sure the same standards apply.
I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudicial territory and don't care if it's legal or not.
> I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudicial territory and don't care if it's legal or not.
Governments can be locally tyrannical, or tyrannical in-the-moment with the actors immediately involved, but not at all levels or not over a span of time as the pool of people involved grows.
In fact 100% of the cases I know about, of the second amendment's consequences being successfully used against a tyrannical government in the US, it's been a local government that's turned tyrannical (usually very-corrupt local cops and city or county government[s], coupled with a bunch of racism).
(To be clear, though, I'd not personally advance that fact as a strong point in the 2nd's favors as an actually useful-in-practice amendment for the supposed purpose of "defending liberty", as there are at least as many cases of private arms propping up local tyranny, or sowing political terror in the name of tyranny; "a mixed bag" would be a very generous reading of the history, and "net-harmful to the cause of securing liberty" is probably the fairer judgement)
