From kpollitt at thenation.com Mon Nov 15 07:45:55 1999
(Remember Randy Weaver, Waco -- if I remember correctly,
each of those cases began with the killing of a govt agent
and ended with total defeat for the armed private citizen.
Randy Weaver's situation hardly "started with the killing of a govt. agent" ... likewise for Koresh: the "start" was long before it came to trading projectiles. We certainly should "remember Randy Weaver, Waco" but probably not for the reason you think.
Your point about it being hard to respond effectively to state-sponsored force is well taken (it gets harder everyday, and precisely because it's not 100% futile so already -- just look at the number of agencies who now authorize the use of weapons in their everyday activities, especially weapons that are denied to ordinary citizens), but don't be so quick to play the "if they weren't guilty, the govt. wouldn't have killed them" card.
It's like when larry pratt argues that "if only" the Jews
in the warsaw ghetto had been armed, they wouldn't have
ended up in Auschwitz. but, of course, they WERE armed.
I think you've confused two groups: the unarmed group that JPFO et al refer to was in Germany (not Warsaw), where private ownership of weapons of nearly any kind, not just firearms, was abolished in 1938 (unless you were "reliable" i.e., in the Nazi party; not terribly different from our two-tier cop/not-cop gun control laws here in the US). It's not talking about a specific battle (though the Warsaw ghetto uprising was a startling example of what can be done) but rather a whole approach. This is why it's probably more important to look at the large number of militia sympathizers in the US than the 40k or so active members.
Further, I don't think anyone says that if you have a gun you can beat the government. The reasoning is more along the lines that disarmament of citizenry is one of the first steps taken by nearly all genocidal governments.
/jordan