The problem with the argument I'm complaining about is, that it transforms the fight against oppression from a moral duty to a legal duty.
G.W.Bush's win in Florida was legal, because the court said so. That still doesn't make it right.
Tiller was murdered, based on the moral that he were a murderer. That still doesn't make it legal.
If you let laws decide for you what's moral and what's not, you give up your freedom to decide so yourself. The "brake-in-case-of-tyranny"-argument does exactly that. These people figure that they have a legal case to use armed insurrection if those ill-defined limits they set up are violated.
Who wastes time finding a moral reason to do something when you already have a legal reason to do something?
You are upholding law and order as it was intentioned!
Whereas, if you have the strongest of moral reasons to do something, you still have to consider the legal ramifications.
The fight against tyranny shouldn't be a matter of what the book says.
It should be a matter of what your heart, your conscience and your ethics say.