1)I tell someone exactly the form a logical refutation of my argument takes, and he repeats back to me an assumption of the exact point of contention as an attempt at refutation, and this happens several times (and also attributes to me the opposite of what I said). I'm sorry, but this does tend to resemble a Monty Python skit, and those are funny. So, deal with it.
2) Of course they could. I never claimed otherwise. My claim was that in order to deal with even unarmed militia, police would have to use politically untenable methods, if the militia are willing to put their lives and health on the line. Thus, in fact, police would NOT have dealt with them, even unarmed.
You've, once again, responded by restating your position back to me, not comprehending that restating your position does not counter my objection to it.
Let's say riot police use tear gas, and charge in behind with batons. It's a huge desert (not a constricted urban area), so protestors just exit the area with gas, and reform their line.
Can police still beat all of the protestors down with batons? Sure - but it's going to be very ugly with political backlash (unlike the urban case where they don't have to beat down so much, because gas incapacitates). So, I argue, they would not. Methods of non-lethal force to control the militia protest in this context break down. Therefore, protest by militia with or without guns has the same effect.
**Note: I say again - I haven't proven anything, and it is possible for a reasonable person to disagree with me. But, that is not what we're seeing here. I'm making statements open to logical interpretation, and the responses are the equivalent of monkeys flinging shit, not logical co.unter points.
