This is the one of the most ridiculous things i have ever read.  Only from the minds of the left who are so fond of confrontation could such an idiotic concept make sense.  The gist of it (at least from my limited perspective) is an armed society isn't truly free because it is harder to offend, insult, bully and FORCE their opinions on someone that can defend themselves.    

I did not post a comment yet for risk of just furthering their cause with my anger and frustration.  Maybe one of you wordsmiths can post something a little "less confrontational" than I could manage.  He even had the balls to reference the Occupansy "movement" and the Arab Spring as nonviolent.  What world do these people actually live in?  Reading through the comments just furthered my frustration, how do you convince someone the sky is blue when they refuse to remove their pink shaded glasses?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/

Many of the comments seem just as bizarre. For example, one states that Britain is one of the most polite societies. Tradigically he/she omits to mention where in Britain this is. Its certainly nowhere I've been, the people here are generally rude and arrogant - the products of a society told that more government interferrance is the solution to the problems caused by government interferrance. eg. Piers Morgan. (PS. Please don't send him back. We don't want him).

Right. This is a lesson that is utterly lost upon the left. Non-violent protest develops and is effective when the government is influenced by public opinion. That is non-violent protest's power, the power of an outraged citizenry that will either vote (preferably) or force (if necessary) the current rulers out of power. When the State controls the media, is non-democratic, or has a monopoly of power (funny how those three so often coincide), non-violent protests are dealt with very effectively and efficiently by the State. Does anyone really think that the cops in riot gear with truncheons and guns are really being held at bay by the semi-literate patchoilli-reeking hipsters with the chants and the signs? They are not. They are retrained by leadership that is, in turn, restrained by their desire to not be voted out of office. Elmininate the possibility of that and the hippies will find out what "less lethal" is all about.

Or just "lethal".

Mike

PS I'd remove Kent State from that list, btw. Outrage about that was effective in changing a lot of things.