I could try to explain how banning the right (starting with the extremists and now including the POTUS and presumably about 20% of the USA) would just push them into the online equivalent of desert training camps. But why bother? People will just say "That's their fault". This is not a smart way to discuss policy, but I fully expect that this is what it will degenerate into.
"Banning them drives them underground where they can be radicalised by the actual nazis!" That's their fault. End of story, we can all rest easy knowing that if the policy is counterproductive, we meant well (everyone thinks they mean well) and someone else is really to blame.
I dont see how the militias who brought bombs to capitol or planned execution of governor could be radicalized further.
I am also in uneasy when these are equated with general right wing. Yes, contemporary right wing is generally enabling them at best, but I still see it better if right wing wont become synonym with armed attackers groups.
"Banning them drives them underground where they can be radicalised by the actual nazis!" That's their fault. End of story, we can all rest easy knowing that if the policy is counterproductive, we meant well (everyone thinks they mean well) and someone else is really to blame.