The Second Amendment Right to an Insurrection

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/opinion/colorado-ruling-trump.html

("The Anti- Democratic Quest to Save Democracy from Trump")

I see. So insurrection is not trying to forcibly undermine the ministerial process of confirming election results already certified as correct, even after some 60 court challenges to that conclusion have proven woefully, ridiculously, overwhelmingly without cause. No, keeping a duly elected President from taking office cannot possibly fit the indisputable understanding of insurrection as defined in the aftermath of the civil war and the circumstances then under consideration.

Then, with that lesson in hand, I ask what the framers contemplated in their Second Amendment phrase "well regulated militia". Is it not but a body of citizens conscripted for military service? And if that be so, wouldn't it stand to reason that the reach of the Second Amendment was never intended to extend to each of us in our private lives and daily exercise of promised freedoms? 

But the reality is that the Constitution is as expansive or restrictive in its meaning as we say it is. And if we can interpret the right to bear arms as formulated in the Second Amendment to include everything just short of an individual keeping a nuclear arsenal in the garage, how hard would it be to find that the actions of Mr. Trump, in fomenting hatreds and misconceptions that literally led, like bread crumbs on the streets of D.C. directly inside the Capitol building, fell within the penumbra of what can be deemed insurrection?

Thus, whatever counter-factual Mr. Douthat can manufacture to make us less committed to the zealous prosecution of Mr. Trump, we are not going to allow his what's good for the goose argument to take our focus from the gander who, with malice aforethought, tried to bring our House down.