The necessity of an armed populace was so unanimously advocated in the early Republic that it played a central part in the arguments of both sides in the debate over the Constitution. The writings of some of the framers of the Constitution show that they valued the right of individuals to possess arms for their personal and property protection as well as for the common defense. Those who would limit the interpretation of the right to bear arms only to an organized State militia argue that technological changes since 1791 have rendered an armed citizenry irrelevant for either national defense or resistance to domestic tyranny. They also argue that the amendment's central purpose has no meaning in the modern age of weaponry, since a citizenry having only small arms would have no chance of defeating a modern army. This argument collapses under the lessons of history, which show that a revolutionary people with only small arms have defeated a modern army, such as in Iran and Nicaragua. Further, a people who enter an armed conflict with small arms can secure more sophisticated weaponry from outside sources. It is also important that in a free country the citizenry have arms to deter any renegade military leader who might consider challenging the popular government.