> Neither choice is valid
Why not? They are the very real choices people are making.
Some would argue that lethal force is always wrong, even when you're being killed for money. Sorry, sorry... allowed to die without care ... for slightly enriching people that are already very, very, very rich.
Others, like the rebels in Syria, or the defenders in Ukraine, would argue otherwise.
> this statement is just pure mindfuck.
If you've never seen things in this way, you should start.
The billionaires see it that way.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
These laws, these norms you cling to... these are not designed to protect you.
> I'm not going to condone lynching or vigilante killings in any civil context.
Things stop "being civil" when death at an industrial scale becomes wildly profitable, legal, protected, and enforced by violent police.
The same police that will stand outside a school for an hour and tackle parents who do try to protect the lives of their own children.
> We're at civil war already,
You are, you just haven't noticed.
In case you do notice, you'll realise you're on the side that's losing because while you wring your hands in fear of things turning violent, the other side has been feeding your side into a meat grinder for profit at an industrial scale.
The Sacklers killed 200,000 of you people and you want to protect their right to lord over you in absolute safety!? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49718388
> At least we'll have justice, finally."
There's no "we" here.
I live in one of the rest-of-the-world places where healthcare is universal, and you have no justice. Not yet.