Not sure if this is the right place, or if this would be better under the "Soft Sciences" but the Blog post on the latest Fort Hood shooting, tied to a recent article I saw on armed protestors made me raise a question:

"Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?"

Here is the thrust of the question. Has the need to justify ownership of military assault rifled pushed the lobby into playing the "right to revolution" card. Take for example:

The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is why the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction that is needed but they had no intention of giving up the same right that they exercised to give us freedom in the first place. Nor were they pious enough to assume that their correction would stay in place and that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction as they had.
http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2013...ssault-weapon/

or

Why do I need an assault rifle you ask? I don't need it for hunting. I don't need it for home protection from a single invader, or even two. So I echo the sentiment of many gun control advocates; Why do I need an assault rifle, with a high capacity clip no less?

Here is why. I need an assault rifle because I live under the rule of a government who thinks it has the right to take away my assault rifle; a government who dictates who I can marry, what I can eat, drink, and smoke; a government who uses force to take my money away from me, who charges me rent (property tax) to live in my own home: a government who commits acts of war without the consent of the people, who murders it's own citizens witout probable cause or due process; a government who has monopolized the currency with which I can trade my goods and services, then devalued that currency through inflation and taxation; a government which uses the tyranny of democracy rather than the freedom of a republic.

To put it bluntly, I need an assault rifle in the event that I might have to declare my independence from a tyrannical government. I'm statistically unlikely to ever shoot an intruder in my home. I'm statistically unlikely to ever be in the position to stop one of these rare mass killings at a school, as these things happen far less often than the media would have you believe. However, whether you are Democrat or Republican, you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)
http://www.dailypaul.com/266890/why-...-assault-rifle

The inevitable result is this:

Albuquerque Police Chief Gorden Eden shows a video of a protester wielding an AK-47 assault rifle during Sunday's protest held in response to the fatal March 16 shooting of a homeless man by police in the Sandia foothills. (Greg Sorber/Journal)
http://www.abqjournal.com/377167/new...ame-a-mob.html

This is the first incident that I have seen, but I would guess it will not be the last.

The question I am posing is not about gun rights. This is not a debate about the second amendment per se. It is a question about what we should do when (no longer if, now it is when) a protestor starts shooting policemen?