You may (or may not) recall the Obama administration announcing it would do just that with violent far right groups (including, but hardly limited to, white supremacists) in the first months of his term, only to meet backlash from conservatives accusing him of creating a thought police or imposing martial law. Recalling headlines from years since, I would say that backlash successfully prevented any government action to protect the public from violent bigots.

The most practical advice for anyone not a straight male WASP is probably "Buy a gun and apply for a concealed weapon permit and/or move to a state allowing open-carry." Government cannot prevent even the dangerously deranged getting a pair of guns (so their imaginary friend has one, too, ) leaving the general public no defense from inevitable attacks except returning fire. Remember, when Gabrielle Giffords said Sarah Palin putting a crosshairs on her district endangered her life, then got shot, the crime was Giffords "blood-libeling" Palin.

In America, shooting someone over politics is more acceptable than objections to BEING shot, so if someone comes after you with a gun shooting back is more valid than complaining. Far right gun advocates (rather than gun advocates generally) insist guns are the only defense from bigots and/or nuts with guns. If their words are unconvincing, their behavior, both in opposing laws to keep criminals and the mentally ill from getting guns and less savory behavior, is quite compelling.

A blind fool could have seen the Joplin arson coming, because the outcry against that Muslim center made criticism of the "Ground Zero Mosque" look tame by comparison. Just a few weeks ago the "Votemaster" over at Electoralvote.com noted the Democratic and Republican nominees for a MO US House seat were competing in campaign ads over which most forcefully opposed the Joplin religious center, notwithstanding the fact 2010 redistricting moved the center to a wholly different constituency. Apparently the point is now moot; the only silver lining is that neither candidate should be able to blame the other for the arson (though I would not be surprised if both tried) since both have vehemently and repeatedly condemned the center.