Who is being philosophically inconsistent here, as the young man (Ben Shapiro) argued? Sure, if the 2nd amendment is meant for people to rise up again tyranny, is this the reason all gun owners own guns these days? Absolutely not!
Second, did the founding fathers envision the kind of assault weapons in the context of the 2nd amendment? No.
Third, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is really for fighting against tyranny, why limit it to hand guns and rifles? Why not have more devastating weapons? Such as chemical, biological and Nuclear weapons in civilian hands? If No, Why not? Where do you draw the line in the context of the 2nd Amendment?
Please be philosophically consistent, Mr. Critic.