I should've commented on this yesterday, but it slipped my mind until I had cause to reread it. Mike is saying something we've been saying for years: if you want to disarm the populace, you should be willing to do it yourself, or at least have some plan in place to actually attempt it. Sending the government boys to take them is not only endangering them, but it is a complete cop-out by those who wish to have us give them up.
Unsurprisingly, some in the blogosphere immediately denounced such talk as unnecessarily violent, crazy, and extreme. They make the point that many people seem to already believe gun owners are crazy. They say that this sort of talk reinforces that belief, since it seems more extreme than the views many would like us to espouse. (I'm not going to point to any specific blogs, but I'm sure you can find some.)
Some of these people would even be uncomfortable with comments like "from my cold, dead hands." At least that means those people are only naive, rather than hypocritical. Do you think that phrase can be uttered with any truth by someone who isn't willing to defend his (or her) rights against those who would take them? There is no room in that phrase to follow it up with "unless those nice boys in uniform are ordered to strip me of my rights, in which case, I guess I'll become a slave quietly."
We've been surrendering rights slowly because we tend to shy away from "extremism." The problem with "extremism" is that it's easy to confuse clear-cut with extreme. If we were having a discussion on the sum of two and two, would you call me extreme if I continued to suggest it was 4? Insisting that the right to bear arms is a God-given right that the government has no right to limit is not extreme--it is simply correct. Pointing out that there are still many gun owners with the spirit of the Founders in them is not extreme, nor is the declaration that those people will resist tyranny. Jefferson figured for occasional rebellions to prevent tyranny from taking hold. A bloody rebellion about every twenty years certainly seems more extreme than saying "if you want them, come and get them."
Mike wasn't saying that he was going to start killing cops because of the ridiculous number of restrictions already in place. In fact, he did not say he would start killing cops. He simply explained that there are consequences to coming for our guns. He challenged those who would ask the government to grab our guns: if you're so gung-ho about taking the guns, would you try it? Of course these people wouldn't--why would they ask others to do it for them?
Then again, many would consider me an extremist. I don't believe there is any way to justify machine gun bans, background checks, or any of the other so-called "reasonable" restrictions. Incidentally, I also oppose bans on blogs, which allow rapid-fire freedom of the press, or background checks when attending church. Well, I guess "reasonable restrictions" on other freedoms don't really seem reasonable to anyone.