The idea is that each busy person goes to a meeting with about a hundred other politically like-minded folks about once a month. We would just have to accept the fact that a free society requires its people to have some level of commitment to civic involvement.
These meetings or assemblies then appoint delegates to conventions which debate broad issues. These conventions appoint delegates to one 'general convention' which represents an entire state.
The general convention can then serve to make this civil disobedience issue work out a little better for the people. Initially, there might be some friction, but once this system is well established you would have state legislators voluntarily striking down laws that the general convention of the people reject - because they know that enough people won't follow that law.
The idea is to give the people leverage against the state, so that the state is in a position to earn the consent of the people continuously.
Nevertheless, civil disobedience is the essential 'method' of revoking consent for the state. Without it, then you have landed in a situation where the state isn't bothering to seek your consent. And the 2nd amendment serves to protect, in a reactive sense, against the state's initiation of violence in those situations where we have revoked consent.
Of course, some might say that this is chaos. But that's why common law and self-government require the presence of an organized forum of the people. And, in the end, a lone man does retain the right to individually revoke consent for the state. That's much preferred to the Orwellian alternative.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: