If you've got 60M people pissed off enough to take up arms against the government, why not just throw the bums out at the polls? This whole line of argument collapses because the US gov't really *is* subject to popular opinion. If enough people take up guns to matter, they could have gone to the voting booth instead (or the picket line, etc.). Why bother with violence when non-violent means are sufficient?
Besides, even 60M may not be enough. The South tried it once. They had a lot more than just handguns (i.e. modern weaponry, top notch generals, etc.). It didn't work. Of course they were upset because the gov't wouldn't ALLOW them to do something nasty, i.e. spread slavery to future states, so I don't know if the analogy really holds.
Brett
>> OK, you've had about 200 years to test this absurd hypothesis. Care to
>> give me one instance in which one could claim that the US government was
>> deterred from doing something nasty to somebody for fear of its "armed
>> citizenry"?
>
>The point is that the *threat* could be there. If ever there was a time
when
>enough people armed themselves as Jordan mentions, then we might see the US
>government cower. Power, even backed with institutionalized state violence,
>is never absolute.
>
>Emma Chissitt