Originally Posted By: Sini
Originally Posted By: Derid

For an open society to function there has to be a balance of power between the populace and the rulers, in real terms not paper terms.


I actually agree with the above, but at the same time I don't see guns solving money in politics or wealth distribution. These are real "balance of power" issues. Having a freeman on the land nutter hole up on their ranch in a standoff with a local sheriff does not impact "balance of power" in any meaningful way.

For example, Orange Revolution in Ukraine happened without armed population and against armed government. Patriot Act and civil forfeiture happening in a most guns per civilians country in the world.

How do you explain that?


As you well know breaking down those situations is rather complicated. Armed power is not the sole factor in any equation, obviously. It is however *another* major factor, and unbalanced physical power is certainly no less detrimental than unbalanced monetary power.

Though I would be the first to say, that weapons alone are not sufficient to solve anything. Weapons are the last option, however once the weapons are gone your options are much fewer.

One of the biggest problems with lack of weaponry, is actually the dependence it then breeds. Weapons are always needed in society, but in a well functioning society they are typically used solely by the State. But what happens when the State withdraws its protection from people, groups, or even entire areas?

Its a decidedly vicious form of control where the State abdicates its duties and leaves a disarmed populace at the mercy of the local criminal element (occasionally state sponsored or sanctioned) who somehow never seem to lack for arms, no matter the time, place, or laws against weapons.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)