I clearly went too far because I was satirizing your mischaracterization of other people’s arguments

Whose arguments did I mischaracterize in the initial comment I made? The National Guard's? What a load of horseshit, you came out of the gate attacking me for no reason.

Buying “a” gun won’t do anything meaningful in and of itself. We need some people to buy a lot of guns and ammo.

What does it matter if one person buys 10 guns to give to 10 people, or if 10 people buy their own guns? The end result is the same. You're just putting ideological hangups before pragmatism.

We need lots of people thinking about each other. We need people thinking about things like food, water, waste, etc.

None of which is precluded by buying a gun.

Like the US government has never caved because somebody shot a bullet at them. They cave because airports get shutdown, because trash stops being collected.

Neither of these is correct. For example, the US government caved when the NVA shot a bunch of bullets at them. They also have the capability of suppressing strikes at gunpoint, if it comes to that. Just as they did the student demonstrators at Kent State. Strikes can be effective, but if you have no capability to fight back, then it's not likely to be enough.

Like a bunch of military drones come through your door you won’t even have the opportunity to kill a single fascist. You’re just dead, killed by a guy essentially playing a video game. A missile is the same thing

Of course. I never disputed that. But they aren't sending drones or launching missiles, they're sending people.

There’s no heroic fantasy where just owning a gun lets people takedown a fascist.

That's just obviously false. Are fascists impervious to bullets now? Is Charlie Kirk still alive, then?