Sinij, your opinions - or anyones - on whether armed resistance to tyranny could be effective in this day and age are not relevant to the topic.

Unless you want to say that the First Amendment is also subject to restriction, because sometimes people say irresponsible things that end up badly.

For example, our news media helped spread lies that more or less directly resulted in the deaths of over 100k Iraqis as just one example (though a large one) out of infinite possible examples. I could literally spend a day rattling off examples of irresponsible speech leading to bad things happening just off the top of my head.

Also, in many bad scenarios regarding govt - speaking out does not change anything. You can hold up as many signs as you want, or write as many "letters to the editor" as you want - it really makes no difference if armed thugs bash your skull with a rifle butt, or bomb your house. As has been demonstrated many times the world over (think Tienanmen Square as 1 ex)just exercising "speech" does not necessarily mean squat.

So by your logic, since it might not (even probably wont) help anyway, and is often abused in ways leading to the deaths of many many people, at great cost to society... why not restrict freedom of speech as well? Perhaps if people were restricted in what they said, fewer irresponsible things would be said.. and society would be much better off right?

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)