I agree that if things were not so bad the authorities would come down on the good honest people, mainly because they are easy targets and law enforcement sometimes tends to be lazy. But in a situation where police chiefs are being brazenly gunned down and the federal authorities are totally inept I think that vigilantism may be the only solution. I'm basing my comments on a situation as bad as described in the article coming here, with no hope in site of course. At one time the U.S mail was robbed so often that people were losing hope. The U.S. Marines were called in and the problem was solved. If a similar problem existed that could not be solved by a similar solution I think we would need to take action. And the authorities would be unable to stop us.
If you think that is wrong, just think back just 15 years ago. Would you suspect that 7,000 automatic weapons would be issued to employees of the EPA? Would you suspect that, after a horrendous, murderous terrorist attack by Muslims, our President would repeatedly call Islam a religion of peace? Would you suspect that any President could impose this kind of airport TSA crap on the public and be reelected? Would you suspect that any President could be reelected with Mr. Bush's position on illegal immigrants, especially after the terrorist attacks? Most of those are Mr. Bush's policies--I won't list more than the EPA thing for Mr. Clinton, since that would take all day.
Law-abiding citizens are the easy plums on the low branches that are picked, once self-defense is declared to be the crime of vigilantism. It's difficult to stop the assassins. It's easy to blame and prosecute those who try to stop them. So, which target will be in the government's sights (sorry for the terribly mixed metaphors and the cynicism)?