Speaking of our God given the right to bear arms. Praise the Lord in Kentucky! http://bit.ly/7ClCd

Ha very cool.

I like the analysis.

Afghan militias (not professional army) eventually ousted ussr professional troops with tanks, armored helicopters and vehicles, fighter jets and bombers, and they were armed basically with just rifles, ak-47s and rpgs. Yes, they were somewhat funded, armed and trained by US agents, but they did it, then they became the taliban and bit the hand that once fed them, go figure. Now a modern professional US armed force has militarily beat them, but are still struggling with pockets of them. The pre castro cuban dictator, batista, and his professional army supported by the US, were toppled by castro and his armed militias, only to become a MUCH WORSE dictator that has ruled with an iron fist AND TONS OF REPRESSION AND MANIPULATION for almost 50 years already. North vietnamese militias kept professional US airforce army and marines at bay for several years, of course chinese aid of these militias was crucial. Other cases and examples can be found.

On the other hand, totally unarmed but well organized civilians can totally overturn a country's leadership if they are sufficiently determined and resourceful, recent case Serbia's Otpor vs. Milosevic. Argentinian, Ecuadorian, Bolivian goverments have been toppled by civilian unrest. In Venezuela in 1958 the dictator perez jimenez was ousted by generalized unarmed popular unrest, and current dictator chavez (he may have been elected to office, just like hitler, but currently is a dictator) was once ousted for a few days after he violently tried to repress a massive unarmed rally. Other cases and examples can be found...

So the real answer is IT DEPENDS... It depends on the country, it depends on the dictator or regime being toppled, it depends on the leadership, organization, determination and resourcefulness of the opressed, it depends on the ruthlessness of the regime...

The notion that the Iranian protests will fail only because the protesters are not armed is ridiculous. The question is only how willing is the regime to accept condemnation for their brutality in an increasingly well-documented and realtime world. No mob waving handguns and hunting arms can stand against a well-organized military response if the military is willing to use their force at full or even moderate effect. The mob's only hope is that the military will refuse their orders. The cell phone, internet, and camera are far more important weapons to achieve this end than guns.

There are numerous examples in very recent history where popular protests either succeeded or failed at overthrowing a regime. In no case did the success or failure of those movements hinge on whether the mob was armed. Conversely, success or failure had a great deal to do with how well organized and documented the protests were.

Repressive regimes are not afraid of guns. If anything, an armed uprising is easier to put down; the regime can legitimately claim a sort of "self-defense". What repressive regimes truly fear is sunlight.

Kevin,

When you are dealing with a freak like Ahmadinejad guns are the only thing he gets. The guy happily goes on record every few months talking about how he wants to wipe Israel off the planet and we think that "talking" to him will change his mind?

Dictators don't care about people, they only care about power. If the citizens have no way of fighting back then they lose.

Both are important, as evidenced by the fact that tyrants always try to limit both

It's not true that tyrants always try to limit gun ownership. Nazi Germany is a good example. Gun control was rather strict under the Weimar Republic; the Nazis actually liberalized the gun laws considerably, with the exception of Jews who obviously were being systematically stripped of rights of all sorts. As of 1938, long arms were completely unregulated in Germany until the allies took over in 1945.

Maybe if the Jews had had guns, you say, things would have been different? No. Consider the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. A group of about 1,000 Jewish insurgents armed mostly with handguns attempted to resist deportation. They were systematically crushed by 5 SS *training* battalions; not even front-line troops. A second uprising was undertaken in 1944 by a well-armed Polish partisan army with military training and organization, with the German Army under extreme pressure from an advancing Soviet Army. Even with these high-quality forces far beyond what a popular movement could hope to muster and an occupying army severely distracted and overextended, the uprising was crushed with at least 16,000 insurgents killed, over 150,000 civilians killed, and about a third of the city reduced to rubble. My point, once again, is that even a well-armed population has no hope of overcoming a determined tyrant; the disparity between the firepower available to police/military and the common citizen is simply too extreme. The only limits on the regime are how willing they (and their agents) are to exercise brutality.

The very first thing a government does when faced by mass protests is to claim that they're violent revolutionaries bent on overthrowing the legitimate authorities. This is exactly what the government of Iran is claiming. This claim is what gives their violent repression legitimacy. Putting ineffectual guns in the hands of the protesters merely increases the credibility of that claim, making it much easier to violently put them down with the world's blessing. Civilian protesters are actually much better off being flagrantly helpless; it is significantly better protection than the false security of packing heat.

Look at the sitation in Iraq. Those guys have at their disposal massive quantities of automatic weapons, high explosives, extensive military experience and organization, and a considerable willingness to kill innocent bystanders. They're still getting their asses handed to them, usually in small bloody pieces. The routine violent Palestinian uprisings in Israel aren't getting much traction at overthrowing that government either. For that matter, despite our popular mythology of the Minuteman, our own American Revolution would have failed miserably if the French and Prussians had not provided considerable military assistance. Do you really think a disorganized bunch of dudes with Glocks and Charlton Heston bumper stickers is going to be able to offer serious resistance even to the ATF, much less the US Army? Please. They're just going to get themselves wasted.

There are lots of good reasons to promote well-regulated gun ownership. But the notion that governments are somehow afraid of your Smith & Wesson and that it prevents tyranny is ludicrous, chest-thumping nonsense. When it comes to resisting tyranny, the cell phone is far mightier than the handgun.

You seem quick to give examples that back up your point, which I respect....but please, let's hear your thoughts a week from Saturday on the ability of an out-gunned, armed militia seeking freedom too overthrow a world power.

I already told you my thoughts on that. Brave and determined as the American militias were, they never would have succeeded without considerable assistance from the real militaries of other nations. The early years of the Revolution were marked by an unbroken string of military disasters for Continental forces. Washington's greatness was demonstrated by his ability to somehow hold the army together at all during those bleak times. They didn't start getting any traction until France, Spain, and Netherlands all went to war against the British, preventing them from focusing their attention and considerable resources on the American conflict.

The climax of the war, the pivotal victory at Yorktown, was made possible by the French. The situation was set up by the French fleet under de Grasse first defeating the British Navy in the Chesapeake, preventing any reinforcement or evacuation. A large French expeditionary force under Rochambeau had also recently been landed in Rhode Island. Cornwallis probably would have escaped by land if he had not been bottled up by Lafayette prior to Rochambeau convincing Washington to invest the trapped British instead of launching a very likely disastrous attack on New York. The humiliating surrender of Cornwallis' force caused the British Parliament to change government and negotiate for peace. It's hard to see how that would have come about without the extensive participation of the French.

French got involved because the militias got things started and then to a tipping point.

The point is, eventually someone with a gun gets involved...so don't surrender yours in good times in the name of "safety"

Then you agree that armed insurrection is hopeless unless the insurgents can arrange for the intervention of a third-party with a real military on their behalf? Any "tipping point" would have been moot if there had been no intervention, since the militias would have eventually been crushed just like every other unsupported armed insurrection since the invention of gunpowder.

It's important to understand that in 1775, civilians and armies were armed with essentially the same weapons. In fact, sometimes civilians had arguably superior weapons (rifles vs. muskets, for example.) Even given armament parity, superior organization and discipline of professional military forces proved an insurmountable obstacle, as the early years of the American Revolution demonstrated, and could ultimately only be countered by other professional armies. Washington's central task was to transform the militias into a real Army. Until that happened, there was no hope of success, and he needed a lot of foreign assistance to do it even before the continental powers formally declared war.

Nowadays, the police and military have not only the advantage of superior organization, but firepower orders of magnitude superior to what can be mustered by a civilian population. How can civilians armed with handguns and hunting rifles possibly prevail against machine guns, autocannon, tanks, helicopters, artillery, napalm, chemical weapons, and air-delivered precision-guided munitions? Even the cops in a large city have a lot of that stuff available. The obvious answer is that they can't. They're just going to get themselves killed, and the killers will likely be congratulated.

When cops gun down an unarmed suspect or bystander, they have to answer for it. As soon as somebody pulls a gun and the cops blow him away, they get medals. Nobody except militia wingnuts criticized the Feds for killing the guys shooting at them at Waco or Ruby Ridge. What got them in trouble was killing people who *weren't* armed.

Same thing happens in insurrections around the world today. When governments brutally suppress armed rebellion, they get foreign aid to "maintain their sovereignty". When they slaughter unarmed civilians, *then* they get international condemnation, real sanctions, and sometimes armed intervention. But only if the world can see.

In short, a repressed population's best hope at overthrowing repression is to be unarmed but well organized, and to have the means to show the world what is happening. Citizens trying to shoot their way to freedom are no longer "helpless" and will greatly reduce their chances of crucial external support which is essential to the success of their movement. Hoping to prevail by force of some pathetic collection of firearms is simple suicide.

Truly, the camera phone is mightier than the sword.

You've obviously never seen Star Wars. :)

I believe that effective outside help comes when the helper sees that he will be on the winning side by joining. You rarely get there with signs and cell phones (though I do agree, sunlight is crucial).

We'll have to agree to disagree...the whole "their weapons are superior so it's best if we make ourselves as weak as poossible so that others pity and save us" arguement falls flat with me.

But maybe you're right....and something will change in Iran because of youtube. I just doubt it.

Andy do you think it is the right of US citizens alone or in concert to attempt to violently overthrow the duly elected government?

No, it is our right to defend ourselves against tyranny by any government, including our own (which I hope never happens!)

Andy it took me 5 secs to find this http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-246793
from back in April.

If the Dems pass single payer healthcare or cap n' trade or whatever, some people may intrepret that as an unacceptable arrogation of their rights by tyrants.

Who explains to them that they don't have the right to use their guns to make political statements?

I don't underestimate the intelligence of objectors, nor do I assume that anyone has vilolent intentions without any evidence.

This scene (skip to about 3:50) from Josey Wales is all any leader needs to know about negotiation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFOkEV_z62M&feature=related

(including the hand-cutting)

Point #1 reminds me of Clarence Worley, Christian Slater's character in "True Romance": "...[I]t's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

I'm not really sure how "Rights" equate to power. They are tenuous at best. Google "Japanese Americans, 1942, internment".

Was referring more towards "Rights" in contracts, investments, relationships, etc.

Agree that all "rights" ultimaately hinge on the 2nd amendment

Wrt point 2 above and current US foreign policy, I have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to current involvement in Iran's affairs.

Must be from all that time I spent playing risk as a kid. Considering we have a military asset in every. single. country. surrounding Iran {Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Saudi, Kuwait, Djibouti, Turkey, Turkmekistan, Uzbekistan} I think we have a couple more fingers in various pies than we are led to believe.

No question