[rabble]

It is interesting to see this thread twist from being about 'free speech' to being about 'the right to bare arms'. And I agree with gonzo this is an interesting discussion without much name calling. Therefore, I will add my two cents - although it is probably only worth a about a half-penny.

I rather think the right to bare arms to secure a 'free state' was decided to the negative by the Civil war of the 1860s and that the right of citizens to secure themselves against tyranny is wrongly fought on second amendment grounds, EmporerEJ. As, I think it was rhetorical pointed out ... your handgun is wholly ineffective to protect yourself from 'the government'. And, although I have some sympathy for you protecting yourself from the criminal element, I would point out one is statistically more likely to be shot when one owns a firearm than when one does not.

If you really wish to protect yourself from tyranny I think you should take a closer look at the weakening ( particularly during the current Bush administration of ) 'due process' clauses of the Fourth Amendment. Particularly the prohibition against 'general searches'.