flynn23 wrote:
if you're upset about how the government is going to embark on spending your tax dollars, wasn't the whole point of the 2nd Amendment to allow your show of force as a means to keep the government in check? I do believe we discussed this interpretation before and it changed my mind a lot about guns in the US. This is perhaps the first time I've actually seen it used in this way and it may be effective. Think about whether people showed up to protest TARP with side arms strapped?

No, no, no.

here is nothing reasonable about these extremists. Bringing firearms to a protest rally - a mob environment where people are emotional and apt to do stupid things - would be irresponsible even if it was well intentioned, and it isn't.

The idea that they might roll out a public option healthcare plan is no where near the sort of situation in which people need to exercise "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

The Government is still controlled by elected representatives. The Constitution is still in force. No one is being killed. If you want to win in our political system you have to convince most people that you are right, and having respect for democracy means having the patience to give people the time to become persuaded by your views and the willingness to accept defeat when the public moves in another direction. To threaten violence is to abandon that democratic process in favor of coercion and intimidation. Its not self defense.

It is particularly disgusting coming from a political faction which is in the minority by only the thinnest margins, and has been out of power for a mere 6 months or so. These are the exact same people who popularized the sentiment that "elections have consequences" 4 years ago when their party was at the peak of its power.

RE: Op-Ed Columnist - Obama’s Trust Problem - NYTimes.com