Written LATE last night, in response to this, referenced over at ever-talented Tam's blog. Tried to post it as a comment, but somehow it just didn't take.

_______________________________________________________

Ok. We'll see if this gets through.

Having meandered through the comments here, I'll jump in since I'm waiting for a server process to wind down.

Free speech is a grand thing, but like all such freedoms, the really miserable part is that you get precisely as much of it as you allow those you oppose to enjoy.

As far as the Free Republic goes, I've not been over there for some years. It seems I boggle them a bit much when I combine "libertarian, gun-owning, gay man" all in one person. But I will point out that there is a huge difference between "I wish someone would " and "I'm going to rush off and and here's how.", and that ever-popular variant "Why don't YOU go and .

The difference is even greater when, for a variety of reasons, opposes at a fundamental level the current President, or the present pack of loons/rogues/fools holding Congress (or both)in both practical ("You are a vile congress-critter! No! I will NOT assist you in any way, nor will I sell you any food or do any business with you!") and political (building alliances, working to unelect various critters, etc) and proposing or soliciting folks to rush out and do "bad things".

It is even perfectly lawful and even worthwhile to discuss that perhaps the Red/Blue factions of the present nation are so irredeemably at odds that perhaps all would be served better by division of the nation into two or more successor nations.

If the meme is that anyone who opposes in word/thought/deed (no matter how gracious) Obama/Pelosi/Biden is an evil racist traitor using tricky "code words" to seduce the unwashed knuckle-draggers to violence ...I'm afraid most folks are going to be pointing and laughing at you (those that aren't busy being offended the sheer patronizing tone and elitist assumptions) to really do much of that.

The Second Amendment was included specifically in support of that distrust. It's really dandy that it facilitates self-defense, hunting, hand-eye coordination, and keeping folks familiar with the firearms of the day around lest there need again be a draft. All good stuff. But at the end of the day, the founders meant it as a last and desperate balance against a government gone mad.

As a nation of rebels, we've used this last resort from time to time.

Most non-historians only think of the Revolutionary War (SOMETIMES, the War of 1812), the Civil War, the Spanish American War (Though not many), the two World Wars and our conflicts since.

It's not a complete picture, and what it leaves out is critical.

We've done one great big rebellion (the Civil War) and a whole bunch of smaller ones that don't get nearly the press. We're a nation of http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8590balances, and one of those is that if pushed too far...we're not shy about pushing back. It's simply that post-Vietnam (we do remember the SLA and their buddies, yes?) the liberal protest model has been sign-waving and shouting and involved lots of propaganda an attorneys in a "kinder, gentler" way of taking exception to current conditions.

But to recall a bit of history (and save time as I'm giving up on the server till morning) one can find references to some of the earlier rebellions (1780-1915)at http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8590

Of course, the tradition of armed rebellion didn't *stop* in 1915...it simply moved around a bit. Without spending more time than I care to, I don't have the links - but I'd point to the post WWII resistance by black veterans (supplied by the NRA) to the Klan, and during the Civil Rights movement and to the various violent groups during the Vietnam era...

Domestic tranquility has been a relatively recent phenomena (and in the past, rather shortlived)in the United States. We just don't talk about it much these days...and until recently, everyone in major office had sufficiently vivid memories of "just how bad can it get if I ride roughshod over the opposition" that an unspoken "what say we don't push THAT hard" ruled from both sides of the aisle.

I, and many others, are unsure that the current single-party leadership (really, is it EVER a good thing for one party to hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency at the same time?) to sustain that meme, and are more than moderately concerned.

After all...the Revolutionary War was sustained with (depending on your source) the support of between 10% and 35% of the population at the time. 'Tis worrying in a time when the economy is going sideways, the nation is already divided against itself, and Mexico is hovering on the edge of collapse...in ways that appear increasingly likely to provoke a military response from the most pacifist of Presidents.