

Agreed, the “well regulated militias” argument was always nonsense.
People can barely work together in office spaces, have zero appreciation for democracy, and have zero discipline. Yet we expect these same people to painstakingly learn combat, change their lifestyles, and agree who the enemy is.
For full transparency, I support 2A - but I support it because it is the best way to be uncooperative with violence. This is extremely important for not only having any chance against a corrupt government, but also your hysterical neighbors - who want to lynch you for being a witch.
P.S. Remote areas tend to be significantly more violent than populated areas. This is a phenomena observed through both anecdote and data. Protecting yourself from rabid neighbors in remote (often rural) areas is a genuine use case!
I think the rule of thumb is to never take a conservative at their word. They seem to only argue in bad-faith for their own personal gain (whether it be money or pleasure); and will go as far as changing the meaning of words and reality to be “correct”.
When a conservative makes a hypothetical, just assume it has no nuance, practicality, nor scientific process. If it did the militia argument would’ve been dead-on-arrival.
I read the thread you linked. I’m so fucking tired boss.
What do you even do in this situation? The algorithms and propaganda networks are all controlled by fascists and people don’t care. Beyond not caring, they refuse to even protect themselves from being targeted in this way - they do not value privacy nor integrity.
So what do you do? We have to figure something out.