Was it... was it this thread or some other that pointed out that the actual impact of the 2nd amendment in a theoretical second American civil war scenario would be pretty close to nonexistent?
Th'face of modern warfare's made most civilian weapons, especially in the hands of the more-or-less untrained, more or less meaningless. I mean, you could do a little bit with guerrilla stuff, but it really wouldn't mean jack in the face of an actual military force, especially one integrated with a modern military support structure (artillery, air, etc.). Calling the second amendment a method of resisting tyranny is... kinda' silly, nowadays. Original intent, maybe, but the combat effectiveness of the sort of militia the second amendment would involve arming is pretty piss poor these days.
If any uprising's going to occur and do more than jack-all in the face of actual physical oppression, it'll involve a military schism, not a civilian uprising. Arming the citizenry just doesn't really do much (besides jack up the death toll) anymore, especially with the stuff that's accessible by the general American population.
I guess it's a bit of a psychological comfort, though, even though the actual capability to resist is effectively nil? Illusion of the capability to resist might be an effective tool of control, honestly...
Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot. Keep in mind, they're fighting with vintage WW2-Cold War era weaponry, whereas the hypothetical American rebels would be fighting with modern equipment. Add the fact that the US government would be far more limited in fighting a rebellion since they would need to keep some measure of public approval to get recruitment, avoid defection, and not create more enemies. If they handled it like they handled Afghanistan, they'd have 80% disapproval and every dead rebel would create ten more in the short run.
Oh, it wouldn't be a "The armed Americans march to Washington and clear out the evil dictator/boundary-overstepping President in a grand battle" scenario obviously, this IS the 21st century. It would be a long, bloody guerrilla war. But then, it would be a long, bloody guerrilla war that the rebels would almost certainly win in the long run, whereas with an unarmed populace the government would undoubtedly have all the cards.
Anyway, gun ownership support from the left is a relatively new thing. Barring some weird states like Vermont, most American left wingers were strongly anti-gun in the 1990s and it was a major issue like healthcare reform. I'm pretty sure what happened is that the pro-gun types won that one so strongly that the mainstream left kinda gave up on the issue, since it hasn't swung back in the direction of gun control since the 90s.
Libertarians tend to be pretty fundamentally opposed to the kind of economic reform Occupy is going for. It's not surprising you'd want them out of your movement.
In this case, they seem to be going to the protests and comprise (alongside the bridge building left wingers) over 50% of them, so I find it funny that a couple of the so-called "99%" are incorporating to keep the rest out of their club. If they want to be exclusively for lefties, and incorporate, than they sure as hell aren't the 99%.