give it a chance of success, and such supportrncould well prevent the need for resistancernthrough political means. Only arnblatant usurpation of power in excess ofrnauthority might try to override such resistance,rnand the coup attempt in Russiarnillustrates that massive resistance canrnsucceed even with little or no violence.rnMaybe we do need to give morernthought to where we draw the line. Howrnmuch power do we really grant to thernfederal government? If the power is accumulatedrngradually enough, it may notrnbe blatant enough to inspire massive resistance.rnIn that case a smaller grouprnmight be suddenly and accidentallyrnpushed beyond its limit and provide therntragedy of a Lexington-like spark, withrnviolent, armed resistance the final result.rnIn either case, without the SecondrnAmendment we lose much of our optionrnto resist. Even the most massive nonviolentrnresistance becomes fatally or nearfatallyrnweak without the threat of armedrnresistance to back it. Two old quotesrncome to mind: “The price of liberty isrneternal vigilance” and “Those who givernup essential liberty to purchase a littlerntemporary safety deserve neither libertyrnnor safety.” It’s time we paid a littlernmore attention to where we stand beforernit’s too late.rnHere on the Eastern Shore, guns are arnway of life. People like to hunt, peoplernlike to shoot, and people like to collectrnguns out of historical or aesthetic interest.rnMost small towns could easily armrnan infantry company out of private collections,rnand small cities could probablyrnarm a regiment—possibly including automaticrnor other heavy weapons. Therernare no militia groups, but organizationrncould occur around fire companies, fraternalrnorganizations, gun clubs, and evenrnveterans’ organizations if the provocationrnwere severe enough.rnI doubt I will ever have to stand andrnliterally fight for my rights. I hope Irndon’t. If it’s going to happen, I hope itrnhappens after my lifetime, after my children’srnlifetimes, and, if and when theyrnarrive, after my grandchildren’s lifetimes.rnI suspect that’s about as many generationsrnahead as we’re capable of worryingrnabout.rnAt the same time, I wonder if thatrnisn’t what those Massachusetts farmersrnfelt in 1775. No doubt resistance to thernBritish Armv looked as hopeless to themrnas resistance to the federal governmentrndoes to me. But if it does come to liningrnup on the village green, I hope I’ll havernthe courage to stand with my neighborsrn—and they the courage to standrnwith me—to make sure America stays arnfree country of free people.rnWe celebrate that freedom on thernFourth of July, but those words of JulyrnFourth were created by the actions ofrnthose men in April 1775. In my mind,rnthat’s the real holiday, in the originalrnsense of the word.rnRichard ]. Davis writes from Hurlock,rnMaryland.rnWaco in Moscowrnby YuriN. MaltsevrnThe standoff between PresidentrnYeltsin and the Russian Parliamentrnended in flames and gunfire that can berncompared to the sad scenes of thernBranch Davidian compound in Waco,rnTexas. Even the scare tactic of roundthe-rnclock rap music was emulated byrnRussian spetsnats troops. Having crushedrnhis opponents, Mr. Yeltsin returned Russiarnto its familiar state of one-man rule.rnThis was to officially last until the Decemberrn11 elections and then informallyrncontinue under the fig leaf of a newrn”democratically elected” parliament.rnWith his main opponents Messrs.rnRutskoi and Khasbulatov locked in therninfamous KGB Lefortovo prison, thernelection campaign will be a mock tournamentrnbetween Mr. Yeltsin’s very ardentrnand most ardent supporters.rnImmediately after his “Wacoization”rnof the parliament, Mr. Yeltsin purged hisrnother enemies, who by chance of faternwere outside the Moscow White House.rnThe second round of repression oustedrnthe Supreme Court Chairman, the Prosecutor-rnGeneral, and dozens of provincialrnleaders and local bureaucrats. Therntour-de-force was staged right—Russiansrnwere reminded that Mr. Yeltsin, irrespectivernof his image as an indecisivernand reflective casual drinker, can easilyrnturn back into the Ivan the Terrible ofrnthe Moscow bureaucracy, the role hernplayed successfully during his tenure asrnFirst Secretary of the Moscow Partyrnorganization from 1985 to 1987. Today,rnthe former Politburo member is trying tornemulate Chilean dictator AugustornPinochet in establishing an anticommunist,rnbenevolent dictatorship with therndeclared aim of making a long-awaitedrntransition to a market economy.rnAs paradoxical as it sounds, democracyrnin postcommunist nations is essentiallyrnan antimarket phenomenon.rnWesterners have observed with dismayrnhow by the formally democratic process,rncommunists—the most explicit enemiesrnof both the free market and democracyrn—have come back to power in Poland,rnUkraine, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, andrnother postcommunist countries. Thernblame for these developments shouldrnrest, to a large extent, on anticommunistrnreformers themselves for being indecisivernand halfhearted in pursuing the causernof freedom. This indecisiveness has prolongedrnthe agony of socialism and itsrncorresponding hardships for the people.rnFormer communists and other antidemocraticrnforces, including those recentlyrndeposed in Moscow and those who arernstill prospering in the provinces, wouldrnexploit this lack of reform and pin thernblame on the nonexistent free market.rnMisguided by old-style communistrnpropaganda punctuated by Western advicernto go slowly, phase in freedom stepby-rnstep, and embrace piecemeal changesrnas liberty, the ordinary Russian, Tatar,rnor Kalmyk has no immunity against therndeadly bacilli of socialism. The only immunityrnagainst a slave mentality is privaternproperty. Making the right to privaternproperty indispensable is the onlyrnreal basis for true Jeffersonian democracy.rnBefore the establishment of propertyrnrights, democracy in the postcommunistrnworld is a hberal delusion, arndangerous Utopia that is as illogical, phony,rnand disastrous as socialism itself.rn”People without property are slaves,”rnAlexis de Tocqueville warned us 170rnyears ago. Slaves are deprived of choices,rnwhich differentiates them from free people.rnWithout private property, any talkrnabout democracy in Russia is meaningless.rnElections to the burned parliamentrnwere the first grandiose political showrnstaged by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 tornimpress the West and his own peoplernthat Russia was getting over its communistrncongresses and was to be ruled fromrnthen on by the same democratic principlesrnas the welfare democracies of thernWest. Being one of his misguided subjectsrnon this matter, I decided to runrnand was even nominated by severalrn”working collectives” (one of the requirementsrnof the show) in the ProletarskirnDistrict of Moscow. But my careerrnJANUARY 1994/41rnrnrn