Just wanted to post my comment in response to the statement that Thom (on his radio show) made a week or two ago regarding the Second Amendment and defense of liberty. He stated that since Egypt's government fell without force of arms, it was further proof that the argument of the right to keep and bear arms to have for use (if needed) against an oppressive government was without any basis, since they weren't needed against Mubarek.
I would offer that the events in Libya offer just as compelling an argument FOR the right to keep and bear arms for that purpose. Thom's argument is not always the way to go. Every revolution is different. But I would rather have the arms in reserve (in case the non-violent struggle does not work) than none at all.