Whilst I agree entirely with Whippoorwill about the need for personal responsibility, the rest of his post appears to bear out my earlier hypothesis that the indignation over this song is not because of its inherrant advocacy of violence, but because of its attack on middle class white values. Unfortunately, the learned judges comment is overridden every day by all governments, and in particular that of the USA, in foreign policy (Who is the evil empire today - Libya, Iraq, Iran, Israel - oh sorry too many voters support them). Ask the miners in the UK, black youth in the USA, the aborigines in Queensland, the Maori in NZ, about the role of the police in "protecting society", read Thoraeu's essay on civil disobedience.

I think Whipoorwill has also missed the point in his last paragraph, that democtractically elected governments who impose excessive restrictions on minorities do so with the support and blessing of the majority, and that therefore songs and protests of the disenfranchised minorities will be seen by the majority as an attack on their standards and call for more restrictions and so on in a positive feed back loop. I can't speak first hand for Canada or Australia but I think Whipoorwills point about willingness to accept personal responsibility, and oppose the Governement, is disproved as far as the UK is concerned by the successful civil disobedience campaiign against the Poll tax. Unless of course, and I sincerely hope I'm wrong, that the refernce to "give us your guns" was meant to be taken literaly with regard to these countrys' recent arms control legislation. In which case I can only say in sorrow that a society that advocates the right to bear arms at all times rather than in defence of the nation should not be surprised or shocked when someone other than a member of the majority advocates their use in a way the majority consider inappropriate.

Pete M