Originally Posted by Skinny.

I'm not interested in semantics. Someone invading a country, and an unwanted leader comming to power somewhere are pretty much the same from the point of view of the populace.


On a large scale, peacful protests are more attractive. However, when it comes to local concerns, armed action is preferable. If a violent group (not necessarily the government) is taking over a small town, one hundred people joining hands and singing won't do much against thirty people with firearms.

Besides, I think even people in peacful protests should be armed, so they can at least escape if their plans fail. A peacful protest is only a peacful one until you are being shot at (see:Iran). You would have all these people die, I would have them defend themselves until they can escape. In before: 'we can't trust them', don't be so elitist as to assume collective irresponsibility.