To clarify for Fhar and others, the article mentioned at least one Santa Cruz resident who originally came to ANSWER's non-violent protest but decided to tag along with the break-away vandals. This person was said to have undergone a "transformation," finally recognizing her inner anarchist. It seems fair to question whether a transformation actually happened, or whether this person or any persons so "transformed" really understood or were committed to the principles of non-violent civil disobedience in the first place.

Thoreau gets popular credit for defining the terms of American civil disobedience, violent or not. Gandhi and King emphasized non-violence in their approaches, which built on Thoreau's foundation of principle. Non-violence not only worked for King and Gandhi, it seemed to improve on the 19th century model.

Too bad the original article was not a spoof. Viewed as satire, it seemed almost witty. Taken seriously, it offers a powerful argument AGAINST gun control. If some people feel free to vandalize whenever the opportunity is right as long as they can rationalize the act as furthering their cause, perhaps the rest of us all need to be armed and on guard. Didn't thinking similar to that presented in the article bring down the WTC? The terrorists who did that were just as serious about taking the consequences for their actions, and just as sincere in their motivations and desperation, as the break-away protesters in SF ever could be about theirs. The violence was still wrong in both cases.