Quote:1) A revolution cannot just depend on deserters from the army to bring all the guns and ammunition.
2) Even with deserters, it may not be enough. Strength in numbers, not necessarily strength in skill.
These points suggest why it is important to revolutionaries to have arms. The people in my country who most frequently talk about armed revolt are exactly the kinds of people I do not want to see ever start a revolution. The flaw in the second amendment is the assumption on the part of the authors of the Constitution that armed rebellion would be a just action purely on the basis of the government being the opponent (no doubt the viewpoint of anti-Federalists). In practice, it has only ever given the losers of the republican system the idea that they can win with violence what they can't win at the polls by claiming 'oppression'. That is what happened in the Civil War and what is happening with the Tea Party lunatics today.
Encoding the 'right' to revolt is, in practice, nonsensical. The only 'legal' rebellions are the ones which succeed.
