> Armed civilians don't mean civilians stand a chance against the police or military. They're outnumbered, outfunded, out-trained, out-equipped and whatever the

> Armed civilians don't mean civilians stand a chance against the police or military. They're outnumbered, outfunded, out-trained, out-equipped and whatever the out- equivalent of the state having sheerly more options, is. You're missing the point of an armed population and its ability to fight tyranny. First of all, the military has almost nothing to do with any of this. Tyrannical regimes have to maintain order at a hyper local level, which means either by police or police-like forces. Secondly, it has almost nothing to do with going "gun to gun" and shooting out a winner. Level of violent escalation and public support for the regime is the name of the game. When a population is disarmed a government can make political dissidents just disappear in the middle of the night without a sound. When there's even a possibility of an armed population it means if they want to take out opposition they're rolling up with armored vehicles, swat teams, choppers, the works. This sort of event gets noticed! It requires an explanation. It means live coverage, newspapers, choppers, etc. How many bloody shootouts can a regime survive while retaining public support? How many Wacos could the US have had and still maintain social order?