Reply #13: More that without firearms it's harder--much harder--to resist tyranny

[Mairead]

But even with, there has to be a near-universal sense that everything's at stake.

And obviously, if tyrants are more willing to kill citizens than citizens are willing to kill tyrants, then there's a problem.

Here in the US, Bush's regime is seen as legitimate...or at least not illegitimate enough. Even though Bush is clearly a usurper, placed in power by a coup, anyone knocking him off would be convicted even by a jury of people who would dearly love to see Bush and his henchcreeps sent to prison for the rest of their lives. Similarly, an armed revolution designed to overthrow this illegitimate regime would get little support. People are too passive, so firearms are of no use.

But things could change. If SmirkCo cancelled next year's election, for example, that might be enough to energise people, and then firearms might be the difference between success and failure. As we've repeatedly seen when people riot on a large scale, the cops who are happy to roust unarmed citizens who are peacefully protesting are not willing to risk their own butts against large groups who are armed and ready to do battle.

The Iraqis are in a funny situation. They have (had!) a lot of firearms, true, but Islam is a remarkably peaceful religion that teaches fatalistic acceptance and obedience to law rather than resistance. 'Inshallah' - 'if God wills it' - is a favorite Arabic phrase and captures the general outlook quite well. So it's not surprising that they tolerated Hussein. Most people tolerate most things.