🚀 go-pugleaf

>But what if the citizens have to defend themselves from the government?
>Read your history books man!  Not to mention the US Constitution.

	I do read my history books. There's nothing in them that
convinces me that guns in private hands are necessary for a successful
revolution, or for a populace to defend itself. Do you read your history
books?
	Guns certainly make it easier to start a revolution, but you
can go a hell or a long way with much more primitive tools, if you've
the belly for it, and once you're started down that route guns are easy
to come by. Besides, a consistent pattern in successful revolutions
has *always* (read your history!) been defections from the military.
If you don't have enough ideological support for your revolution
that you can't garner support from the populace and the army, you
probably shouldn't be revolting in the first place, because you
haven't got a mandate.

	The argument about "guns to defend against the government" is
*laughable*. If you accept Kent State as a clear case of government
abuse of weaponry against defenceless populace, that makes the score:

where guns would have helped fight oppression:		1
where guns got some poor bastard shot over beer:	some large number

mjr.
-- 
        Failure science requires intelligence. Any goddamn fool can shoot
his foot off, but doing it with common kitchen ingredients, while attempting
to make a cake, is very difficult.
						-Failure Science