In my mind this is the crux of the problem, and what makes it more than just an academic debate. At what point does a portion of the population decide that taking arms against their own government is appropriate? Associated questions are: Can the kind of guttural ferocity that is required for people to use deadly violence against representatives of their own government be manufactured by a “lobby”? … or does the “lobby” simply tap into the guttural ferocity that already exists in the population?
From what I have seen, at least in the associated question, it is later. A group has to have a pool of seriously disgruntled people to insight before rhetoric turns into action. Of course, this is just my opinion based on watching the conversation. It also appears that the level of emotional hatred required cannot be created around simple complaints. Something like taxes may be the rallying cry but that is just the tip of the iceberg.
I am also not sure if any of the observations, based on antidotal evidence, are transferable to another culture. I believe many of the complaints are uniquely American.
I am not sure whether a single incident where someone shows up at a protest with a loaded weapons will turn into two, or twenty, or whether they will eventually use that weapon. My feelings are that they will. There were many acts of civil disobedience but a massacre in Boston galvanized the colonists into feeling that they were not longer under the protection of the King's Soldiers. I don’t think this will get that far, but it is early.
Bookmarks