J Carlton: So what's the difference when even James Madison, a Founding Father, 'defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy, and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".' (Wikipedia) Do you think America is no democracy because it is a Republic? There is no contradiction in these terms. It is a Republic and a democracy and was always intended to be both.

What would really happen if a group of people decided the US government had to be overthrown and tried to achieve this by force? Of course - and rightly so - government forces would do their best to quash this attempt. If a majority of the people in a democracy objects against the government's politics it does not and should not use violence but elect a new government in due time. Smith's assumption just does not apply to democracies. Weapons are alright for many things, self-defense and hunting among them. Fighting against dictatorships is certainly one of their best uses, but usually armed single men stand no chance against powerful dictators. These can usually only be beaten by a well-organized and efficient armed force or when a dictator no longer manages to suppress the populace efficiently enough.