[Glenn E. Meyer]

While I am the strongest RKBA advocate, I'll disagree a tad about political history.

It is more the willingness of the armed branches of the state to turn against their own people that determine the outcome.

In Iran, the heavily armed state was overthrown without armed revolution. In the overthrow of the USSR, similarly, the armed forces wouldn't act.

In China, troops from outside the Beijing region were used as there was worry that local troops would not fight their own students and friends.

Even in the US, such things are considered. During the VietNam riots of yore, in Ohio, NG units from outside the local area were used. I know folks in the local units who told their LTs after Kent State, that if they were told to fire on college kids, the LT might take a round first.

Now if the armed forces will fight the populace or the police use force then an armed populace has a strong role. The attacks on the Iranian demonstrators by truncheon bearing religious fanatic police might not have happened with an armed populace.

My point is just some historical accuracy. If a mass movement infects the armed agents of the state, then that armed force is negated.