Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think if the US populous was zero threat at all that we wouldn't be in an even worse place right now? How can you look at what the government is doing right now in the largest police state to ever exist and be like "Nah, we shouldn't be armed at all."
What I'm trying to say is: you say zero threat is bad, but an armed populace is actually worse than that. It's a potential asset to a wannabe dictator. There are very few ways an armed populace can stop a dictator (and not become an unmitigated disaster for everybody). There are a ton of ways they can start chaos - which can be a great opportunity for wannabe dictators. And that's not considering the case when these…
The strength of an insurgency is in the arms the common people possess, and a weak insurgency means years, decades, even generations of bitter fighting against a despot as they ultimately wait for them to die of old age or in-fighting among the elite and hopefully get someone nicer. I don't think that is an effective or desirable goal, I would rather the issue gets forced quickly. Even if the chance of stability immediately afterwards is lower, I think the ability to mess up despotic ambitions more quickly and decisively makes up for it in being able to do it again rapidly if necessary.
As for people wanting to be part of the death squads, their organizations can be destroyed just as easily as the one they destroyed to gain power. I can assure you that people who want to kill and grift their way to glory and wealth are not the only people armed nor the only ones willing to fight for their values.
Yes, we are sitting on a powder keg, but so is everyone else that want to be king of the powder keg.