[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Thusly, the government will be far less likely to become tyrannical if it fears that an armed population may not be willing to comply with such tyranny...China seems quite secure as did the Soviet Union for most of its history but neither nation's population was (or in the case of China is) free.

True indeed Webley, just being secure isn't enough but having guns doesn't do it either.

Look at Somalia or many other third world countries. Plenty of arms, and I mean the good stuff (machineguns, rocket launchers) that you and I have debated over but are they free? I have been to some of those places and I assure you they are not. They live short brutish lives but they are well armed.

While I agree that right to arms alone does not make a population free, it goes a long way towards it. If you look at most of the atrocities that we see comitted in the third world, we find that it's typically one segment of the population that is well armed dominating or killing another segment that, for whatever reason, has inferior weapons or is totally unarmed. Likewise, the dominated segments of the population, armed or not, are usually poorly organized and incapable of mounting an effective resistance.

To tie in with the OP, it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population. By first disarming the population however, the ensured that they could go about their business unopposed. In comparison to our own country, I think that if our own government did become tyrannical without first disarming the population, it would have trouble getting the military and police to go along with it's wishes as the soldiers and LEO's would fear that the armed population may fight back.

See, arms alone won't make you free either. Rule of law that the people will support does the job. I teach an ethics course to a group of LEOs from time to time. I tell them that what really keeps them safe on the street is that 99.999% of our population respects the rule of law and so the thin blue line holds. If that respect and support were not there then it would be Dodge City for sure.

Yes, the vast majority of the population respects the rule of law now, but if the government became tyrannical, that segment of the population would surely decline and would have to be kept in line by force. Such force would be much more difficult to execute if the population is armed and able to resist. I contend that the case is not that we are armed because the government is not tyrannical, but rather that the government is not tyrannical in part because we are armed. I feel that the part of the purpose of the Second Amendment (besides protection from foreign invaders) is to foster a healthy fear within the government of an armed population and thereby prevent tyranny.