How come this argument doesn't hold water in so many other cases? Americans can't be anti-second amendment but only for people who disagree with the government.
P.S. Also, there's no inconsistency. Simply apply basic logic. You have the right to be armed. You do not have the right to shoot at law enforcement officials; that's a felony. Nor do you have the right to plan ahead of time to commit a felony, including shooting at law enforcement officials.
You're shifting the goalposts rather a lot here; at first you said that just bearing arms (allowed by 2nd amendment) and wearing body armour (not forbidden) was proof that they're 'clearly prepared ahead of time for violence', and now you're saying that they're simply not allowed to shoot at law enforcement, which no one disputed.
Which is it? And why don't you apply that standard evenly?
But if you put on body armor before going into the confrontation, a prosecutor is likely to argue that you were preparing ahead of time for a fight, and that it's evidence that you were planning ahead of time to get into a gunfight. Which means he may well charge you with murder in the first degree, premeditated murder. Whether the jury buys his argument that you were planning the confrontation is up to them, and the other evidence the prosecution advances.
Perhaps I was unwise to assume that people would read the indictment and that I didn't need to repeat what it contained. So, to be clear: the evidence of pre-planning in the indictment included purchasing rifles ahead of time because "Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle so it tends to make them back off" (direct quote by the guy who ended up sentenced to 100 years for, among several other crimes, shooting an ICE officer in the neck). This suggests that the intent was to use the weapons to shoot at law enforcement officers. Carrying weapons is protected under the Second Amendment, but preparing to commit a violent crime is not.
That's the standard. The only thing that's been shifting is my opinion of whether you're actually looking at the evidence vs. forming an opinion ahead of time and not letting yourself be budged by evidence. Which is why I will no longer engage with you after this comment.
Body armor is the most obviously genuine "self defense" item a person could have. A gun, knife or pepper spray might be used for self defense or attack, but armor is purely defensive.
Your whole argument makes no sense. You just hate liberals and are happy to have your perceived enemy behind bars, no matter what degree of authoritarian police state it requires to achieve that end.