1.  Red, I completely think that you deserve the comments I have given you on the matter of gun rights.  I wouldn't have typed them if I thought otherwise, and I am not very happy to see you implying to someone else that my comments are undeserved, even if you may not agree with them.  And I don't frankly care if my view in this case happens to be in the majority here, or if my next view will be in the minority.  I am not taking my cues from the viewpoints of other people, and BTW I am not afraid of guns or gun use, and have said to you that I think Americans should have a chance to responsibly defend themselves as commensurate to an imminent threat that they face.

2.  Sigil:  I think (and I'm not sure, and I will not comment on the legacy of Thomas Jefferson here) that plooger is referring to Tim McVeigh as "our infamous domestic terrorist", not Thomas Jefferson.  And to John Booth as the presidential assassin.

3.  I am sure that you would agree that it is permissible to get extremely angry at people who are not breaking any laws.  Much of the heinous pillaging of our economy by banks and corporations has been _legal_.  Much of the scandalous relationship between the media, the Congress and the lobbyists is _legal_.  This does not mean that there is no suitable place for emotion in these issues, nor that people cannot simultaneously condemn these legal actions and also condemn Congress (or the state legislature) for not making the actions illegal.

4.  I _would_ charge this man with a crime--that of negligence.  It is legal to bring a vicious dog to a picnic where scores of children are eating bacon and taunting the dog.  And I could say "Well, I'm being responsible--I have the dog on a leash, I have the muscular capacity to hold the leash firmly enough to keep the dog from ripping the leash out of my hand, and I have told the park management that I will be legally walking through the park with my dog.  I do not wish for my dog to attack anyone."  But there is always a chance that the leash could snap, and this would lead to a situation far worse than if I had used the common sense to not keep a vicious dog in the vicinity of bacon-eating, taunting children.  In other words, the leash could theoretically snap during any walk, but this situation is particularly perilous for the hypothetical outcome of this occurrence.  "I'm a very responsible smoker, who always extinguishes my matches diligently, does not allow minors to smoke my cigarettes, does not litter, and does not smoke in undesignated public areas.  Therefore, being responsible, I feel justified in smoking while sitting on a tank of gasoline at the base of the town's water tower.  What could happen?"  The following things were/are significantly more likely to occur upon this New Hampshire man's actions.

    A.  Someone irresponsible could have wrestled the (loaded--he said on MSNBC that the gun was loaded) gun from him and used it irresponsibly.  Or the gun could have gotten lost or accidentally discharged by a raucous crowd gathering around him.  

    B.  Seeing his gun could have led to increasingly rabid behavior among less responsible people.  Not his fault, per se, but as a direct result of seeing his gun and being further radicalized by its symbolism.  Yes, I know that one person's "rabid behavior" is another person's "spirited cries of the vigilant citizenry," but I am writing this from a perspective of not being in favor of public melees. 

    C.  People could have been intimidated away from this process by the appearance of vigilanteism backed by force--even if the original gun owner did not intend this.  If, as he wished, hundreds of (even responsible) protestors had been armed, this level of intimidation would have dramatically escalated.  It may be the case that my attending an event which will give me a 1 in 500 chance of possibly expressing my voice to a Congressman whose vote has been bought and paid for by an insurance company is "democracy" and worth risking my life over, but I'd rather not have to make that choice.

   D.  Irresponsible people attending other rallies might see this video and be inspired to bring their own guns.  Does every Congressman have the same level of security as the President does?  Does every group of left-wing protesters attempting to legally utilize the same outside-the-hall space to express their views--do they have sufficient security to be protected from irresponsible people who are desensitized to the gravity of protesting while being armed?

I don't think I am being hyperbolic here.  I don't think that proving a point about extremism being necessary for the protection of moderation needs to physically endanger lives to be made.  I am fine living in a free enough society to tolerate "nutjobs."  But if we have so many of them that basic civility is threatened by force, we don't have a society.