Believe me when I tell you that I won't. But I think that if history has shown us anything it is this: Rights are generally (yes, that's a qualifier) done away with incrementally, but are almost always attained or regained in large chunks that typically involve mass quantities of violence.
Guess that's my way of saying that incrementalism works fine in one direction, but not so well in the other.
And I think you would probably admit that civil disobedience has been a part of this nation since before we won our independence. This is basically The Sons of Liberty without the war paint and in the daylight. The Rosa Parks analogy fits nicely as well.
Exactly! Early in the history of our former Republic, maybe incrementalism could work both ways. Now, however, most people blindly accept each new infringement on our freedom. Those that don't only fight for the things they feel deeply about. They may occasionally win an isolated victory, but now there are tens of millions of faceless, mindless gov't bureaucrats whose 'jobs' are to ever tighten the screws on us, every day.
Today (maybe), a united citizenry composed of patriots like Rick Stanley could use a campaign of mass civil disobedience to bring the system to it's knees, but pretty soon the only thing that will reign in gov't madness will be armed insurrection. When that day comes, despite all the disadvantages we'll have, one thing in our favor is that our opponents will be gov't employees. The hardest thing 95% of them do is spend the paychecks they don't earn, so at least we'll have a fighting chance.