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?

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…

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.

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.