I’m not sure trying to delineate just how much it influenced the decision makes any sense whatsoever, though. All too often, that aspect of the second amendment has been ignored.
Social contract, yo! In theory (and like all forms of government we’ve had down through history, the reality is often different, but we’re talking abstractions here), we’ve all signed onto this idea that we allow the state to have a monopoly on violence in exchange for it accepting limitations that were not imposed on a sovereign, who received their blessing to rule directly from god. The monopoly on violence was and is meant to be kept in check with regards to the rule of law - everyone, even the people who enforce our laws (which are created by the people we elect to office, locally, state-wide, and on the federal level). In reality, when you have a situation that’s commonly accepted, like the idea that white people are somehow superior to non-white people, you get a system of laws that reinforces that.
That depends on who is doing the armed protest. If you’re white and the government will think twice about shooting you, because it will look bad, then sure. When you’re black (or antifa or whatever non-conforming type person you want), then you’re going to get a blood bath.
Except of course they have. There is a long history of violence against protestors. And being armed didn’t save Fred Hampton from being assassinated.
