Are armed citizens overrated?

[Certaindeaf]

Because America.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

I'm actually looking for a serious answer...

 

[Certaindeaf]

No need to insult me.

 

[Akita1]

The Founders also believed very, very strongly that we should have no federal standing army. Only state militias and perhaps a frontier force or a special purpose force like the Legion of the United States. So in this context, it would truly be impossible for a tyrant to take over. Because the very act of raising militias was a kind of democratic process involving votes of support or refusals to recognize authority.

Since WW2 our betters in DC decided they needed us to keep spending trillions on national defense and that we needed a huge standing army. Without getting into the merits of this, it has created a stress on the notion that an armed citizenry can block tyranny. But I don't see that stress as any reason to disarm. Hopefully we can find a way to avoid Rome's fate.



He has many of those powers right now. And he has a Praetorian guard in the form of the Secret Service. And he's very frustrated with the "failings" of the Senate. The parallels are certainly enough to give pause to any student of history. I know this much--now is not the time to lay down arms.



Apaches cost a fortune. Their weapons are expensive. Their crews are expensive. And when you're killing the people paying for those tools, the end result is a death spiral for the government. You cannot slaughter every tax payer. If the household guns do nothing more than give people the idea that they need not obey, then they have done their job. Because what really props up dictators isn't the bombs or jets, it's the belief that there is nothing that can be done. And what really brings them down is the belief among enough people that they CAN be brought down. Plus nobody is truly bulletproof. Helicopter crews have to sleep somewhere--in this case back in the same neighborhoods they bombed. They have families there. And every one of them has to think long and hard before deciding to back the hand of some nutcase wearing a crown, when all his neighbors can retaliate after the day is done.

I've seen enough supposedly powerful dictators put up against walls and stabbed in the backside in my lifetime to conclude resistance is never futile. And for every one of them who died screaming, a dozen took last-minute deals to avoid that fate and concede power to the rebellion. Believe me none of these guys wants to die with a knife in his fundament.

Excellent post

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

No need to insult me.

I'm not trying to insult you, I just don't really understand what you meant with that post. I figured you were joking.

 

[Billy Shears]

If an armed citizenry is so effective, why did all the anti-Communist resistance movements in countries occupied by the Soviets after the war fail?

Lots of insurgencies fail. The Irish had to endure 700 years under English rule before they finally launched a rebellion that succeeded. It doesn't just depend on the availability of arms; tactics, popular support, organization, keeping spies and infiltrators out of the ranks of the resistance, etc. etc. are all just as important.

Even with arms, there is no guarantee a resistance movement will be successful, but one thing is certain: it has a lot better chance if the people are armed than if they aren't.

 

[RX-178]

I'm getting the feeling my point is not being received, so I apologize for not being clear.

Ever heard the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

A legally and constitutionally armed citizenry is Prevention against tyranny.
Actual armed resistance is the cure once it's set in.

If tyranny has set in, legally owned weaponry was the first thing to go.

 

[joeschmoe]

Syrian rebels are laying down their arms. Assad thanks you for convincing them it's futile. Tyrants around the world rejoice Americans acknowledge their superiority.

The Vietnamese have officially surrendered to us as well since they too are convinced armed struggle against the American military was futile.

 

[CapnMac]

The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"

I quipped to Fred, that Tench Coxe's quote above ought to have been the Appleseed motto, and barring that, made the a/s psalm. The latter especially since every time I read that quote I have a reflex to append "Amen" to it.

But, I have to admit that I like Coxe's writings. I particularly like using his "..every terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of an American..." when both the "Well the Founders never imagined" and/or "Why do you need" arguments are advanced.

One thing "we" in this THR discussion may be missing is that a great mass of well-trained individuals exists in our militia in the form of all of the Prior Service personnel.

 

[Kiln]

The Founders also believed very, very strongly that we should have no federal standing army. Only state militias and perhaps a frontier force or a special purpose force like the Legion of the United States. So in this context, it would truly be impossible for a tyrant to take over. Because the very act of raising militias was a kind of democratic process involving votes of support or refusals to recognize authority.

Since WW2 our betters in DC decided they needed us to keep spending trillions on national defense and that we needed a huge standing army. Without getting into the merits of this, it has created a stress on the notion that an armed citizenry can block tyranny. But I don't see that stress as any reason to disarm. Hopefully we can find a way to avoid Rome's fate.



He has many of those powers right now. And he has a Praetorian guard in the form of the Secret Service. And he's very frustrated with the "failings" of the Senate. The parallels are certainly enough to give pause to any student of history. I know this much--now is not the time to lay down arms.



Apaches cost a fortune. Their weapons are expensive. Their crews are expensive. And when you're killing the people paying for those tools, the end result is a death spiral for the government. You cannot slaughter every tax payer. If the household guns do nothing more than give people the idea that they need not obey, then they have done their job. Because what really props up dictators isn't the bombs or jets, it's the belief that there is nothing that can be done. And what really brings them down is the belief among enough people that they CAN be brought down. Plus nobody is truly bulletproof. Helicopter crews have to sleep somewhere--in this case back in the same neighborhoods they bombed. They have families there. And every one of them has to think long and hard before deciding to back the hand of some nutcase wearing a crown, when all his neighbors can retaliate after the day is done.

I've seen enough supposedly powerful dictators put up against walls and stabbed in the backside in my lifetime to conclude resistance is never futile. And for every one of them who died screaming, a dozen took last-minute deals to avoid that fate and concede power to the rebellion. Believe me none of these guys wants to die with a knife in his fundament.

Probably the best way to explain it right here. As another member said, great post.

Insurgencies fail all the time but there are also plenty of times when governments have been overthrown by their people despite having tanks, helicopters, and tons of other advanced weaponry.

 

[Cee Zee]

The average American citizen is very different from who he was, say, 150-170 years ago. He knew how to make a chair or a table from the trees on his property. He could live in the woods for a week without having carried in any food or water. He could ride a horse. He could grow vegetables and grains. He could repair just about anything he could operate.

Hey I know people that still live that way. I grew up living exactly like that. People in cities have always overlooked the fact that many people don't live in cities. The Appalachian region has always been populated by people like that. There are lots of us too. I grew up in the 1950's and 1960's and pretty much everyone I knew lived on a farm that provided them most of their food. Heck we lived on the land ALL of the time. From catfish to frog legs to to snapping turtles to squirrel to quail to deer and rabbit and even things like possum people in this area ate what they found on their land. I never ate possum but I ate every one of those other things and plenty of them. We plowed our gardens with a horse or a mule, we cut timber using a mule, we worked on everything we owned because we couldn't afford to pay others to do it. Eventually we moved into the tractor age and became much more successful at farming. But I chased cattle (I was a genuine cow poke) for many, many years and almost every day. We had dogs that herded our cattle. We had big problems with feral cats too. Guns were essential to protect us from them and from bats that would nest in our houses and chimneys. Only a shotgun would get rid of them quickly. We hunted squirrels with a .22 and pretty much everything else with a shotgun. We didn't hunt deer much in those days because they were hunted out. Rabbits were too actually and there wasn't a single turkey in the county. We hunted coon for fur money. I know people that trapped up until about 5 years ago. Now fur is back in style and there are probably people doing it again. I just haven't been around them for a while. But I know people who trapped until they were 90. I see traps being sold at flea markets so I can only assume there are people using them.

As for the war in Vietnam being won by SAMS etc. let's not forget that hundreds of US helicopters were shot down by small arms fire. And then there were the tunnels. They were used to great advantage in creating havoc and terror among our troops. The casualties counted in a war of attrition which is all our politicians allowed us to fight. Rifles certainly made a huge difference in that war.

And rifles make a big difference in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus the IED has become a household word because of what people have learned. They certainly aren't just using IED's. They stop convoys then fire on them with small arms the way I understand things.

Rifles have a way of making armies want to quit even if they aren't actually defeated. That's what happened to us in Vietnam.

It was pointed out that our southern neighbor, which supported the wrong side in WWII, could have invaded us in the WWII years. It should be pointed out that the year before WWI started we were invaded by a force from that country. We chased that group back into their country too. But their civil wars created a huge refugee problem in the USA and there was a constant threat of a revolt here among people wanting to reclaim the SW. The Reconquista movement, which has been mentioned again in recent years, was a big threat in the 1920's. We certainly had to worry about being invaded during the WWI years. And yes, we have paramilitary forces attacking us right now from that same country mainly because of corruption.

Anyone that thinks an individual with a firearm couldn't make a difference against those forces just doesn't know the score. They can and do. And the gangs are pretty well armed too. Are they not a paramilitary force too in a way? Their bullets certainly kill lots of people all over. If you aren't protected against those people in certain areas you're just plain foolish. The government won't protect you.

A man and a rifle can always make a difference. One guy with a gun started WWI which led to WWII. ONE GUY! Rifles most certainly matter. For one thing I know lots and lots of people that can shoot you from half a mile away. That sort of person can create all sorts of havoc if they wanted. Most people that spend the time and money to learn to shoot that way aren't crazy killers. But there was that guy who got ticked because he was told he couldn't hunt on private property so he shot a bunch of people for running him out. He was a Hmong, which was a group from the highlands of Vietnam and Cambodia that fought on our side in the war. So we brought a lot of them here because they would have certainly been killed by the commies if we didn't. Those people certainly know how to shoot. If the wacky Muslims really knew how to cause problems they could certainly use a rifle to do it. I'm not about to tell them how but trust me, there are ways. Don't ask me how because I'm not saying period.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Wow. I can't believe that this one keeps going around and around. I think the bottom line is that uprisings have taken place in the past that have toppled established governments, and also served to push out occupying invading armies. Privately owned firearms and normal citizens undoubtedly had a role in those scenarios and contributed in some meaningful way. My estimate is that the true weapon of the civilian in those situations is the ability to pass information to organized resistance fighters who use, and used in the past, guerilla tactics to basically make a captured region not worth holding on to.

The original question was....

So realistically, does our right to keep and bear arms still hold relevance as far as defending ourselves from an outside force, or is that more of a "Red Dawn" fantasy some cling to?

I think we can all agree the answer is yes, our right to keep and bear arms does still hold relevance as far as defending ourselves from an outside force. We would however, given modern day tech., be a much reduced influence compared to the past, and it would mainly consist of support, information networking for our troops, and enemy harasment roles. In a stand up fight, a militia of armed citizens would undoubtedly be easily wiped out by an enemy military force (now a days). I think this is especially true when you consider the number of military personel, and the advanced level of tech that would be needed by an invading army to actually overwhelm or even establish a foothold on American soil. They would need some serious high tech arms to make it on to the mainland. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. I think there is a very real possibility from certain unnamed SE Asian countries. No, not N. Korea.

So........ the answer is yes. Everyone good with that?

 

[JustinJ]

I never said it was all it takes. Don't distort my argument.

Then what's your point? Obviously it takes will to win a conflict but it takes other things, including effective weapons, which is what we're talking about.

And if you think that was the reason, you are ignorant of history. Professional armies have ALWAYS enjoyed a tremendous advantage over citizens, all the way back to ancient times. Back in the days of the American Revolution, Washington didn't beat the British with militia. He couldn't, and knew it. He had to raise and train a professional army of his own (enter Baron von Steuben), and get artillery and better arms and equipment from the French. Yet he and the rest of the founding fathers still saw it as vital to keep the citizenry armed.

If you believe the disparity of force between the american militia and the english army is comparable to the disparity of force between american citizens and a modern military today you ought not be calling anybody ignorant of history. Most armies struggle to evolve past fighting in the same manner as their previous war and you're still stuck 100 years back.

For the umpteenth time, guerrillas don't come out onto an open battlefield.

Ah, so body armor only works in open battlefield? I guess thermal does too?

Our army consists of roughly half a million active, and another half million reserve troops. Our population is over 300 million people. How do you expect an army, even one as advanced as ours, to hold down a population over 300 times its own size, scattered and without unified strong points that can be taken to end the war, when that population is determined to resist, many are willing to die, many of the soldiers don't really want any part of fighting their own people, etc. etc.?

If the entire population supports your imaginary revolt then there really woudn't be need for armed conflict, now would there?

Syrian rebels are laying down their arms. Assad thanks you for convincing them it's futile. Tyrants around the world rejoice Americans acknowledge their superiority.

The Vietnamese have officially surrendered to us as well since they too are convinced armed struggle against the American military was futile.

Okay, for the very last time. The resistance fighters are or did receive substantial military aid from defecting military and/or external governments. They did not just grab the rifles out of their closets, since very few had any to begin with, and take down a modern military force.

 

[Billy Shears]

Originally posted by JustinJ

Then what's your point? Obviously it takes will to win a conflict but it takes other things, including effective weapons, which is what we're talking about.

And small arms ARE effective weapons, when used in conjunctions with the right tactics.

Originally posted by JustinJ

If you believe the disparity of force between the american militia and the english army is comparable to the disparity of force between american citizens and a modern military today you ought not be calling anybody ignorant of history. Most armies struggle to evolve past fighting in the same manner as their previous war and you're still stuck 100 years back.

I'm not "stuck" anywhere. I'm looking at the whole scope of history, from the guerrilla campaigns of Quintus Sertorius in Roman republican times to the recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure, the disparity of force is greater these days, but that's like the difference between a flyweight and welterweight getting into the ring with a heavyweight. So what if the disparity of force is greater between the flyweight and the heavyweight than it is between the welterweight and the heavyweight? In either case the heavyweight is going to monkey stomp the lighter fighter.

And from this precise moment in time, going all the way back to ancient times, any force of untrained irregulars is going to get clobbered by a professional army 99% of the time, if they ever fight a conventional military battle. They have to wage asymmetric warfare, guerrilla warfare, in order to have a chance. But when they do, they can beat a modern military. They can't beat them in the sense of winning decisive victories, but they can, and do, win by not losing. By making it clear that they will still be killing soldiers, blowing up bridges, assassinating government officials, etc. next year, or ten years from now, or fifty years from now, if need be, until the government is overthrown, or the invader leaves, or whatever. And many times throughout history, the conventional military has looked a scenario like that, and decided it wants no part of neverending guerrilla war, that it can't hope to win.

Originally posted by JustinJ

Ah, so body armor only works in open battlefield? I guess thermal does too?

Don't be obnoxiously obtuse. The point is -- and you damn well know it, so stop dodging and making smart ass comments --, that the point I am making is that small-scale engagements and ambushes, to say nothing of assassinations of key government or military figures -- all hallmarks of guerrilla tactics -- are precisely where small arms are most useful. The point is that guerrillas, if they are smart, avoid like the plague fighting pitched battles where heavy weapons or high tech weapons are most decisive. Instead they use hit and run tactics to strike and get away again before the enemy can bring his superior firepower to bear.

Originally posted by JustinJ

If the entire population supports your imaginary revolt then there really woudn't be need for armed conflict, now would there?

Yes, no tyrant in history has ever used military force to maintain his power after whatever popular support he once enjoyed has withered away and most of the people hate him. Never happened.

Originally posted by JustinJ

Okay, for the very last time. The resistance fighters are or did receive substantial military aid from defecting military and/or external governments. They did not just grab the rifles out of their closets, since very few had any to begin with, and take down a modern military force.

So what? In Ireland they didn't. They got a handful of tommy guns from sympathizers in the States, but that was about it. They still won.

Every conflict is different. There are too many variables to point to one single factor as a universal truth.

It really is just this simple: if you were a tyrant, or a would be tyrant, and wanted to impose your will on a populace, would you prefer that they be armed or unarmed?

 

[Vector]

As an aside, I would like to point out that during World War 2, we had the bulk of our ground combat forces outside the Continental United States (CONUS). If one of our neighbors (to remain unnamed) had decided that it was a good time to regain lost territory and launched a major ground attack across the border, what forces would have been available to resist? Armed civilians organized into state guard units or resisting spontaneously as levees en masse. Red Dawn? Hardly, but unequal combat to start with since many of the neighboring country's senior soldiers had experience in what seemed to be near continuous revolutions. However, there were many veterans of World War One among the armed civilians who would have been called to resist.

I don't think armed citizens are overrated.

ECS
CPT, AR
USA (Ret)

A good point many do not think of.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Luke Skywalker had a friggin sabre for cripes sake!

 

[JustinJ]

And small arms ARE effective weapons, when used in conjunctions with the right tactics.

The "right tactics" include use in conjunction with military equipment that I'm guessing you probably don't have.

Don't be obnoxiously obtuse. The point is -- and you damn well know it, so stop dodging and making smart ass comments --, that the point I am making is that small-scale engagements and ambushes, to say nothing of assassinations of key government or military figures -- all hallmarks of guerrilla tactics -- are precisely where small arms are most useful. The point is that guerrillas, if they are smart, avoid like the plague fighting pitched battles where heavy weapons or high tech weapons are most decisive. Instead they use hit and run tactics to strike and get away again before the enemy can bring his superior firepower to bear.

Uh huh. Once again, unless you have effective modern military weapons, you're just going to die tired after you waste a couple of rounds. What you seem to not understand, willfully, is that modern militaries have spent the last 70 years or so fighting against guerilla tactics and the technology has evolved dramatically to counter it. Hit and run is pointless when all you can do is deliver little love taps. This is exactly why insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have resorted to converting military grade explosives and shells into IED's. Yes, they use guerilla tactics but when they do engage in direct contact it is in conjuction with mortars, RPG's, grenades, machine guns, radio communications, etc.

Yes, no tyrant in history has ever used military force to maintain his power after whatever popular support he once enjoyed has withered away and most of the people hate him. Never happened.

You threw out the entire population of the united states and now it's mostof the population.

So what? In Ireland they didn't. They got a handful of tommy guns from sympathizers in the States, but that was about it. They still won.

Wow, seriously, get off Ireland. Both sides were equipped with essentially the same weapons. WE LIVE IN A DIFFERENT WORLD.

It really is just this simple: if you were a tyrant, or a would be tyrant, and wanted to impose your will on a populace, would you prefer that they be armed or unarmed?

No, I'm afraid there is a little more to it than that. Just because a tyrant would prefer his opposition not be armed does mean they are anything more than a minor annoyance.

 

[RX-178]

JustinJ, it's come to the point where I just have to ask this of you.

If you can explain the point you're trying to make with your arguments, and do it in under three sentences, could you please do that for me?

And in addition, since you SEEM (I could be wrong) to be arguing why the 2nd Amendment ISN'T relevant to modern America, would you mind telling me why you support it, if you do at all?

 

[holdencm9]

Another thing I don't think people think about is commandeering of enemy weapons. Sure, most civilians don't have artillery or RPG's (well some do) but get a couple dozen people to ambush a supply route, might hit the jackpot.

Even so, I think some people vastly over-estimate the capabilities of "modern" military. Not all units are equipped like you see on modern marvels or future weapons.

 

[Billy Shears]

Originally posted by JustinJ

The "right tactics" include use in conjunction with military equipment that I'm guessing you probably don't have.

The right tactics means making the best use of the weapons you do have, and being smart and hitting the enemy where he's vulnerable, and avoiding him where he's strong. You can cause a lot of mayhem with just small arms if you use them intelligently. Guerrillas know this, even if you don't.

Originally posted by JustinJ

Uh huh. Once again, unless you have effective modern military weapons, you're just going to die tired after you waste a couple of rounds. What you seem to not understand, willfully, is that modern militaries have spent the last 70 years or so fighting against guerilla tactics and the technology has evolved dramatically to counter it. Hit and run is pointless when all you can do is deliver little love taps. This is exactly why insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have resorted to converting military grade explosives and shells into IED's. Yes, they use guerilla tactics but when they do engage in direct contact it is in conjuction with mortars, RPG's, grenades, machine guns, radio communications, etc.

So what? You seem to be arguing from the premise that a popular resistance by people using personally owned small arms must somehow necessarily be limited only to those small arms, and the guerrillas will never be able to obtain other weaponry. This is NONSENSE. No guerrilla force ever fought that way. But if I were organizing a resistance movement, I would sure as hell prefer my resistance fighters start out with some weaponry rather than none. It would sure as hell make acquiring other weapons easier as the conflict unfolds.

Originally posted by JustinJ

You threw out the entire population of the united states and now it's mostof the population.

So? You're looking at things in very unrealistic, black and white terms. If you are a soldier in an army that is 1/300th the size of the population you are trying to hold down, it goes without saying that some of those 300 are going to be collaborators, some are going to be people who just want to ignore both sides of the conflict, some are going to be hostile, and some are going to be active rebels. But how do you know which ones are which? You somehow have to keep watch over them all. And the harsher the methods you use to keep them down, the more you risk pushing more and more people into the rebel camp, as well as losing the support of those on your own side who are uncomfortable with such harsh measures. In addition to ambushes and bombs and so forth, the rebels will be engaging in sabotage, destroying the infrastructure you depend on to maintain your high tech military. A resistance movement, if it has enough support from a population, can make life pure hell for an occupying army. Enough to make them give up sometimes.

Originally posted by JustinJ

Wow, seriously, get off Ireland. Both sides were equipped with essentially the same weapons. WE LIVE IN A DIFFERENT WORLD.

Bzzzt! Wrong! Thank you for playing! Did the Irish have machine guns? No. Did the Irish have artillery? No. Did the Irish have tanks and armored vehicles? No. Did the Irish have planes? No. They were NOT equipped with essentially the same weapons. They were massively outgunned. This is why, as I said earlier, when they attempted a rising in 1916, using conventional tactics, and attempted to face the British like a conventional army, they were not just defeated, but crushed in a mere six days. The disparity of force was massive. I will most certainly not "get off Ireland" because it provides a great, highly relevant example, from modern, post-industrial history, of what a difference the right tactics can make to a rebellion when one side has all the firepower and the other has almost none. You have one rising, using conventional warfare tactics, crushed in days by overwhelming superiority; then a few years later, you have the same people facing that same massively superior occupying force using guerrilla warfare, and still having few weapons other than small arms, and it exhausted the British will to fight and achieved victory.

Originally posted by JustinJ

No, I'm afraid there is a little more to it than that. Just because a tyrant would prefer his opposition not be armed does mean they are anything more than a minor annoyance.

Then why have tyrants throughout history always sought to deprive their people of arms?

Now you are simply in a position of being stubborn and refusing to concede a point where almost no one can't see you are wrong.

 

[JustinJ]

If you can explain the point you're trying to make with your arguments, and do it in under three sentences, could you please do that for me?

Modern militaries can not be defeated armed with nothing but guns and weapons improvised from home depot. When modern militaries are defeated it is by rebel groups with external military support or a large enough part of the military defects. This is not all that is needed but it is critical.

And in addition, since you SEEM (I could be wrong) to be arguing why the 2nd Amendment ISN'T relevant to modern America, would you mind telling me why you support it, if you do at all?

Regardless of original intent the second amendment is still law and will remain so unless amended through due legislative process. Yes, i like and support the second amendment. Just because i support the second amendmet that doesn't mean i have to blindly adopt any argument for it no matter how ridiculous and live in some Red Dawn fantasy.

While i'm not a conspiracy theorists i do believe it possible for society to collapse due to natural disasters and what not. In such a case having an AR or AK would be highly valuable.

 

[RX-178]

Okay, then let's put a hypothetical situation. That shouldn't be a problem, since the majority of this thread has been about hypothetical situations, but let me steer it in a different direction.

Let's say a convention is held to amend the Constitution. Doesn't matter who is in office, or what party, let's leave all that out of it. WHOEVER is in office at the time holds a convention to amend the Constitution, the state Governors send their representatives, etc. etc.

They look at the Constitution and go, 'Hey now, that 2nd Amendment. You know, a militia, consisting of an armed populace, they'd get squashed in a heartbeat by any opposing tyrannical force, whether it be foreign or of our own Government. That Amendment is no longer relevant the way it's written. Let's rewrite it.'

Let's say they rewrote it like this:

'Legally owned firearms being necessary for the security of the citizenry, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

Would you be okay with that?

 

[JustinJ]

RX-178, you can put "for the purpose of looking pretty" before "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" if you wish. It doesn't change what the the law provides. It might in theory affect how a law is interpreted but there is no question that the supreme court has not read the second amendment to mean "whatever weapons are necessary to defeat the government" to begin with.

 

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

IMO armed citizens are not equipped to do anything BUT Guerillia fighting, our main sources of defense are taken from us during the GCA's.

Machineguns, Anti-Tank guns and explosives.

 

[RX-178]

Then, JustinJ, could I paraphrase your point as being: Tyranny is inevitable, regardless of an armed population?