The second amendment is meant to protect the public’s ability, not “right,” to overthrow a tyrannical government by protecting their legal right to maintain the tools to do so. That’s because once such a rebellion actually starts, “legal rights” become irrelevant since the validity of the state itself is being challenged.

So no, you can’t use the 2nd Amendment as a defense in the incumbent government’s courts. You can only use it to win, replacing the government and not having to face a trial at all.

(Also, to be clear, the 2nd is definitely about rebelling against tyranny, not hunting or self-defense against crime or whatever else the liberals try to twist it as – remember, it was written by folks who had literally just finished doing the same.)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Probably some of the most talked about commas in history. But the idea that most people accept today is that the 2nd amendment allows you to have guns. That’s about it. It doesn’t give you the right to shoot anyone.

The second amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Many liberals support stricter gun laws so that there are stronger background checks, limits, etc in order to try and reduce mass shootings, etc. The right wing folks are generally the opposite, trying to remove limits and make them accessible.

So no, you cannot evoke the second amendment as a defense for shooting anyone. It would only be a potential legal defense against laws limiting gun ownership. The second amendment says you can own a gun, not that you can shoot people with them.

As for the state’s monopoly on violence, that pretty much stands except in clear cut cases of self defense. So if someone were to shoot an ICE agent (and survive the situation to make it to trial), it would have to be some pretty extraordinary circumstances that would allow the person to avoid conviction of a crime.