The question is not whether Great Britain was a greater power than France in 1776. The question is, was France two or three times more powerful than Great Britain?

The world was different in 1776. Britain had only just started its long demographic and industrial revolution. (Before someone mentions that 'long' and 'revolution' is stoopid, the tension between the two words is quite deliberate)

The story of Britain is not that of an ancient Great Power. The story is about the ascendency of a country of medium size and import to the world's greatest empire over the period of three centuries.

The comparison between France and Britain isn't crucial. More important is the difference between Britain and the US. In 1776, the American colonies were a small country, about the size and importance of Belgium. Great Britain was a medium power on the rise. How the first overcame the latter needs to be explained. Which I am not going to do here.
Nor anywhere else for that matter, since I do not know the first thing about it.



~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


Very few tyrannical regimes have little support amongst the populace. On the contrary. Tyranny is not two hundred against two million. It is two hundred against one million with the full support of the other one million*, whom somehow have been persuaded into voluntarily aiding their own oppression.
(*this 1 million customarily consists of the usual suspects of infatilodytes, of lovers of authority, of these slaves who prefer the distinction of being owned by the largest slaveholder over personal freedom)

In this sense, an armed populace is neither solution nor prevention. It will only determine the ferocity of the civil war.

In the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and others, later mystification and simplication described the revolutions in terms of 'the people' assuming control against a small tyranical regime. This is not the case. Both were civil wars. Their revolutions spread from a small minority. To a large extent, they were forced upon the majority.

The American loyalists were armed just as well as the independentalists. (Which is not a proper English word, but the term for those colonists seeking independence escapes me at the moment)


~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


In my favourite reading of the Second Amendment, the consequence of the amendment is accepted. One does not have a right to bear arms in and of itself. There's no free ride. Instead, a well-regulated militia will safeguard the freedom of the state. Join, take up your responsibility in this manner, and you can be an armed citizen.

This is the interpretation in places like Switzerland. A conscription army, made up of citizens. And those that have joined have the right (and the duty) to be an armed citizen.


~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

I agree with the premise of this thread. Of all the pro-gun arguments, the argument that it protects against tyranny is the weakest.