>Emma (and others who think armed citizens act as a deterrent to gov't),
>
>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?
And the marijuana referendum in DC? Congress passed a law prescribing that the vote simply not be counted! Supposing the SC upholds that? What price democracy then!?
>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.
Different parameters, I think. That was a formal war, with clearly-defined sides, and a great techno-manufacturing and population imbalance. Citizens against Rulers would be more like the US Revolution, the WW2 Resistance, or Viet Nam --- can't tell who or where The Enemy is, ergo continuous losses plus attrition thru desertion as GIs wised up.