Sam wrote:
>I realize of course that in many cases it might take a long time for the
>people to eventually get their way, especially in totalitarian regimes
>where the citizens are denied the right to bear arms.
Sam, we've had this discussion before but I'm willing to participate again
- atleast until we both once again realise that it's pointless and/or
Michael steps in ;-)
In countries that have limits on the availability of weapons (who can get
them, how are they stored, when and where can they be used etc.) the
population still have the ability to change the goverment.
It's also worth to note that in many totalitarian regimes the ammount of
weapons among the public (especially if we count those being used) are
higher than in other countries.
In general the chances for the population to change things are higher by
being organized. They can of course be this in specialized organizations
(such as the weapon organizations), but weapons as such doesn't make it
easier to change a country (unless you make a "bloody" revolution that is),
a sense of community and a common goal (that's easy to describe for others)
does that. An example of such an organization is the union. Please note
that a union is here the one seen in a country that isn't the US - as far
as I can see in the US it's more like a "secret club" for a small ammount
of people. I guess that's why there's a *huge* diffrence between the US and
Sweden in percents that are in unions - between 80 and 90% here compared to
10 and 20% in the US in the articles I've read.
BTW: Of course my views are corrupt since the average Swede is in more
organizations than those from other countries ;-)
//Bernie
