Wirehead Studios

http://www.naturalnews.com/022308.html

Um... wow I don't know what's scarier this being real and no one being surprised or it being passed...

I wouldn't hit the panic button just yet.  His broad interpretation of the word force in this is contrary to legal precedent.  Force has always been defined to involve actual physical confrontation with various degrees of escalation, eg, non-lethal and lethal force.  Physically restraining someone against their will is considered force, as is striking someone with a baton, as is shooting someone with a .50 caliber rifle.  Sitting in at a protest, picketing, handing out bibles, etc, are not defined as use of force under existing laws.  200+ years of legal precedent don't go out the window just because a new law is passed.  Besides, the Bush administration is done.  Jan 2009, Bush, Cheney, and the rest are out.  So far no martial law, no cities burning, no Imperial Storm Troopers marching down Central Avenue, despite the Patriot Act being on the books for how many years now?

That's not to say there hasn't been abuses.  The FBI's been caught violating the law in regards to eavesdropping.  I think this bears watching, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as he's painting it to be.  At least, not just yet.

It might make a political/military coup a bit more difficult though ;)

Well that's true, but interestingly the Declaration of Independence cites the right of the people to throw off oppressive government by force if necessary, which is primarily why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution, despite arguments to the contrary from the anti-gun crowd.  It's considered a last resort option, though there are varying opinions among different militia types as to what constitutes grounds for a justified armed revolution.  From the government's standpoint I suppose anyone considering an armed revolution would be a terrorist group by default, while from the radical militia's standpoint the government, by acting in such a manner, is justifying their arguments.  I don't think the US government is tyrannical enough just yet to justify an armed revolt, but I can certainly understand the plight of those who have been at the other end of governmental abuse of power.  It's why I cringe when I see people wanting to put big government liberals into office simply because they hate the other party.  I've seen both parties bloat the government, and the ones that really want to control government usually get shot down by the party elites and never get a real chance at changing anything.  I suppose eventually it all will collapse under its own weight, but while revolutions and insurrection are a messy business, anarchy is downright intolerable second only to outright tyranny.

Now the Cobine vs Rebel war doesn't look so distant.