Neither was I. You are misunderstanding the meaning behind the argument. It's not about needing guns to violently overthrow a government you don't like - it's about protecting yourself from the violence of a tyrannical government. They're two different things. Of course, overthrowing a government could actually turn into a violent confrontation with an armed government defender, in which case, yes, the revolutionaries would need weapons to combat the government's own use of them.
Okay. Easy access to weapons doesn't protect people from the violence of a tyrannical government, though. The Black Panther Party stockpiled weapons like nobody's business and the FBI still beat and assassinated their membership as well as framing their leaders for crimes. There are countless stories of police brutality that weren't stopped by the fact that it's easy to get your hands on a gun in this country.
Like I mentioned above and earlier, the Egypt situation was not one where guns were needed to overthrow the government because there was no army to fight against. Had Egypt actually used it's military to combat the rioting, the rioters would have been stopped in their tracks because of the gun laws. But Egypt did not mount an assault against it's citizens, hence, no guns needed (of course, one could argue that had guns been allowed, 1000 dead might have been able to protect themselves from the crazed masses and roving gangs). It also doesn't hurt an revolution when the government you're trying to over throw is systematically dismantled from the inside by a terrorist network.
The government didn't mount on assault on the people? The police were beating people in the streets. They had snipers of rooftops taking people out. What would you call that?
Of course, you're right, the military didn't get involved in the crackdown, and if they had it is very likely that the protestors would have been squashed. But I disagree with the notion that, in such a scenario, had there been more protestors that were armed, the Egyptian people would have been able to stand up to the military. The military is better trained, and no matter how lax the gun laws will always have better hardware and firepower. A bunch of rioters with machine guns against the military, they'd still get slaughtered.
Like I mentioned above, the Black Panthers in this country had a huge arsenal but our government still kicked the crap out of them.
My argument is that it's not easy access to weapons that protects us from government violence or gives us the means to overthrow regimes. The government is better organized, better trained, and has better weapons. And the more tyrannical they are, they less the people in charge care about their casualties as long as ours are higher.
What protects us and gives us the ability to fight back is our ability to build communities and to organize. In the Revolution, it wasn't our arsenal that won the day. Our weapons weren't very good, and the gun control laws of Colonial America were incredibly strict. It was the fact that we had guys like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin working together, bringing people together, getting them to work together, formulating plans, convincing France to give us support. You mention the government being destabilized from the inside, but that proves my point. Wether you agree with their politics and ultimate goals or not, the Egyptian revolution was successful because of people working together towards a common goal, not because of firepower.
It's communities that protect us and give us the means to stand up. Not guns.
By your logic, because the Egyptian government was overthrown despite strict gun laws (and despite the reality of the machinations behind the revolt, apparently), then that means every country can as well, regardless of the situation. Colonial Americans in the 1770s must seem like a disgustingly depraved, murderous bunch of people to you then; all they had to do was call up England and say "adios".
Why are you under the impression that I'm praising the Egyptian revolution for a lack of violence? I'm saying that strict gun laws didn't stop them from overthrowing their government.
Also, Colonial America had extremely strict gun control laws. Before the revolution, it was the law that all firearms were government property and had to be checked out of government storage areas. The Colonial Americans also managed to win a revolution in spite of strict gun control laws.
)
