Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
Similarly, if one thinks the role of government is to exert control over the populace one is also probably more apt to believe that exerting control over firearms is a important aspect of the larger issue of controlling the populace. The problem with taking this path is two fold. No populace likes to be "controlled", and efforts to take away firearms will logically raise issues of trust among the populace as well.
True, but you're not always dealing with "a populace". An example might be the valley to the northwest that I described above, or for that matter much of the main island of Mindanao. here you have two populaces, one composed of settlers that have been largely in place for several generations and see themselves as the natural and progressive inheritors of the land, the other an indigenous populace that sees themselves as oppressed by invaders. Both populaces are heavily armed and ready to go at each other at the slightest provocation. It's often forgotten, for example, that the Muslim "insurgency" in Mindanao did not begin with secessionist insurgents fighting the government. It began with militias formed by Christian settlers fighting militias formed by indigenous Muslims.

I wouldn't necessarily say the best approach is to disarm, but the situation is a whole lot more complicated than just respecting "the populace"... especially when various populaces have mutually exclusive demands and are prepared to fight for them.

I suspect that this situation is not unique... it's simply meant to illustrate the limitations of the assumption that internal strife stems from the relationship between a government and a monolithic populace.