It’s not a requirement, but it certainly helps.
there is no "the people" as a single entity and interests when there is a revolt.
if everybody is armed, the supporters of the tyrant are going to be armed as well.
But with better equipment.
It’s mathematically better, I think that armed populace has a higher chance of revolt vs armed loyalist populace + armed military than unarmed populace vs unarmed loyalist + armed military.
And I also think the reasoning is that the anti-tyrannical populace will be much larger than the pro-tyrannical populace since if the tyrant has the support of the people then are they really a tyrant.
US is the only country in the western World who only made one real revolution.
And it was to not pay taxes, not against a true tyrant.
> And I also think the reasoning is that the anti-tyrannical populace will be much larger
The only thing that will be larger is the anti everybody else populace (tribalism, to give it a name).
USA had one major civil war and they keep killing each other like nowhere else in the World (like ten times more than the west average).
It's mathematically provable.