I agree with your premise. That is why NATO was unwilling to wage aground war in Yugoslavia and resorted to cowardly attacks on the civiliam targets.
However, I also think that you over-estimate the combat potential of armerd citizenry. First they must get a reliable supply of arms and ammunition from somewhere, not to mention logistic support, training etc. - Viet Cong got theirs from China and the USSR.
More generally, there is not a single instance of a government being overthrown by an armed insurrection from below alone (excpet, perhaps for the French Revolution). Revolutions suceed only if: (i) domestic government is weakened by outside forces (such as war, foreign influence or a catastrophe); (ii) insurgents receive substantial support from either outside government or factions of domestic gov't (iii) both
I also think you overestimate the defecting behavior of the professional military. I bet anyone a blow job that if the 101st Airborne or any other unit in this or any other country were deployed to suppress a domestic insurrection - they would follow their orders. There are several good reasons why that would happen, one of them is that for military personnel their unit is their primary social support network. It is only when that support networks breaks down, as it did in the Russian Army during World War I or to a lesser extent in the racially divided US Army in Vietnam - desertion and fragging start making an impact.
The bottom line is that MM stands no chance against 101st Airborne, unless Canadian gov't decides to lend its support. In either case, the 2nd Amendment does not make much of a difference.
>Then you should examine in more detail the current gun control measures in
>the US and see whom they effect the worst, and who is championing their
>implementation. In short, the "liberals" (Clinton, Gore, etc.) and the
>NRA implement gun control which effectively disarms the poor and ensures
>that gun ownership is only available to those who can afford to drop $2000
>for a rifle and pistol. Things like bans on "Saturday Night Specials" and
Again, teh above statement is for the most part true, but it does not refute what I argued. I argued that it is not arms ownership per se, but the organization of the people who own arms that makes the difference. Right wing and the ruling classes in general are very skilled in organizing private armed forces when their interests are threatened from below - Spain, Italy, or Latin America being cases in point. Again I bet anyone a blow job that if a popular party dedicated to control the state from below were about to win seeping electoral victory, we would see a proliferation of armed vigilante groups, from kkk to militias, waging a well orchestrated assault campaing against members of that party.
In fact, the militia movement in this country did not develop ex nihilo - it received encouragment and material support form the Reagan administration (The Nation run an article on that couple of years ago).
So the bottom line is that it would be really nice if on one beautiful day people of this country used their weapons against the ruling class. But that ain't gonna happen. A more likely scenario is that some people will use their arms against their neighbors, if things start going bad for the ruling class.
PS. I also think that under the latter scenario having a weapon would make a real difference against the ruling class' thugs.
wojtek