Precisely. If violence is against one's nature, even if one is incredibly radical, the temptation to do violence will be overruled by personal ethics.
What we should concentrate on is real life consequences for radicalization of conservatives vs. liberals. Radicalized liberals will protest, cause property damage, and use other civil disobedience methods. Radicalized conservatives do not have those limitations as they're already willing to use deadly force in certain situations.
The worst case of conservative terrorism I'm aware of would be the bombing of the Murrah Building:
Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols are (was, in the case of McVeigh) conservative terrorists, spurred into radicalism because of Waco and Ruby Ridge. They created a simple fertilizer bomb and detonated it right in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building on April 19, 1995. 168 people died, 680 people were injured, 324 buildings were destroyed, and caused a total of about $653 million in damage.
Waco and Ruby Ridge have always been rallying points for the pro-gun crowd to justify their wanting to be armed against a tyrannical government, but now that seems to be shifting away from actual instances of the government acting in a tyrannical fashion to a president acting in a moderate way. As someone that's pretended to be a conservative on a radical conservative forum for over 2 years now, I can tell you without any doubt that Barack Obama will be the excuse for the next large attack by a radical conservative. This has to be stopped, and the only way I can see that happening is for those few moderate conservatives that are left to aggressively challenge the radical elements. If someone is repeating lies about H.R. 3200, stand up to them and correct them citing verifiable sources. Force them to face their true enemy: their own fear and ignorance. I'd like to think I'm doing my part via deception, but a liberal can only wear a conservative mask so well.