Raoul, I think there is a body of people over there who believe that if there was an occupation by either a foreign army or our own government gone wild they could mount an effective resistance with the small arms available to citizens now. The US hasn't had the experience of that sort of occupation, thank God.

I think one would want to know what use in that situation could be made of light arms. There's a process for subjugating a population. It's fast and fierce, using all the force available to instill fear. Shootings, beatings, rape, curfew, hunger, thirst, isolation are all used to the hilt. It's brutal, and, in a version of the Stockholm Syndrome, very, very shortly the resisters are hated more than the enemy.

After things stabilize, after a year or so, if there is a power which will support a resistance, and if there is a chance of forcing the occupying power out, then weapons become useful for short-term, purposeful supporting missions. They can find a way to supply the necessary weapons, too.

Until then, since people known to have them will be shot and life made miserable for their neighbors. There is a reason for people to turn in those who have made public their intentions to resist, and they will. Resisters at that point are a liability.

If the government wants to "get" me, they will. In that case my life is absolutely nothing to them. As you pointed out, my having a weapon is just an excuse to get rid of me, if they need one.

I'm not suggesting anyone get rid of guns, not hide them, or whatever. I am saying in an eventuality such as a take-over, it might be best if they weren't handy.

And, there's no reason for anyone on this side of the Atlantic to really understand the process, and I hope we never have to.

Arf