John Hayward/Doc 0: Why Does the Left Think the Talking Point That an Armed American Citizenry Could Never Cause a Problem for the American Military, When They're Constantly Boasting About Third World Revolutionaries Defeating American Military Forces?

Great point.

The left is always claiming that we mustn't go to war in this shithole country or that one, because peasant militias can always defeat Colonialist Invaders.

But when it comes to America, they claim that Bubba can't do a damn thing with his AR-15.

Here's the rest of his argument, put into a less twittery format:

Of course it's vapid, but it's also vicious. They think they're judo-flipping the rubes out in flyover country and pinning them to the mat with their reverence for the U.S. military. "You hayseeds can't possibly think you could beat those awesome soldiers in a GUNFIGHT?"

For the gun-control zealot, it's a form of contempt-signaling, the even dumber negative form of virtue-signaling. Other members of their tribe are supposed to giggle at the image of Bubba impotently waving his "assault rifle" and Gadsden flag while an F-15 vaporizes him.

One of the obvious problems with this "you can't beat the U.S. military so guns are no use against the military" idiocy is that tyrants around the world very clearly DO fear the prospect of an armed populace. That's why they always aggressively disarm their captive people.

The track record of lightly-armed insurgencies against professional military forces in the modern era is actually pretty good, even when the military forces are vastly more aggressive and willing to inflict collateral damage than the U.S. armed forces ever would be.

To even speculate on how things would go if the U.S. armed forces became a gang of ruthless killers under some communist or fascist American tyrant is to enter the realm of science fiction. Healthy respect for the 2nd Amendment helps to ensure things never get that far.

An armed population of sovereign citizens goes a long way toward keeping tyranny from ever getting off the ground. Of course collectivist Democrats with their hive-mind thinking don't consciously understand it, but the 2A is helping restrain their worst impulses RIGHT NOW.

The many, many, many bad ideas of the Left all began as theoretical discussions, campus bullshit sessions, and Two-Minutes Hates in their online fever swamps. One thing that keeps their worse ideas from mutating into policy agendas is the reality of an armed populace.

It really does make a difference that they know some of the collectivist ideas they would love to inflict on the American people would be effectively resisted. The Left knows it subconsciously, which is why they keep having spazzed-out fantasies of using F-15s to slaughter Bubba.

They're trying to reassure each other that THEIR power is absolute while YOU have none at all. Once they trick you into submitting to socialized medicine, forced population shifts, or one of their other doomsday schemes, you'll be helpless. Deep down, they're not so sure.

But long before you dip into left-wing psychosis or apocalyptic scenarios of armed revolt against a tyrant, you have the way armed citizens see themselves differently than disarmed ones. The first two amendments in the Bill of Rights profoundly shape the nature of citizenship.

The 2nd Amendment UNDERMINES tyranny long before anyone has to think about FIGHTING it. If we stand tall as sovereign citizens and cherish our rights AND responsibilities - the 2nd Amendment is where they meet! - we won't get stuck with rulers we have to "take on." /end

Dave Reaboi has an important caveat to this line of reasoning, though:

By the way, speaking of Fake Libertarians, Mike Flynn used to work at Reason with Dave Wiegel. (CLARIFICATION: The Mike Flynn who was, before he died, an editor and writer at Breitbart, not General Flynn.)

Wiegel, Flynn told me, was always Just a Liberal. Not a Libertarian-Liberal and certainly not a full-on Libertarian. Just a standard-issue wallflower drip of a liberal.

Wiegel is one of those many, many Fake Libertarians who talks up libertarianism only as an argument in favor of liberal social priorities -- gay sex, drugs, etc.

When the topic is gun rights or property rights or the right to hire and fire as you please, suddenly this fake "Libertarian" can only think about the grave dangers of Trusting Citizens With Too Much Freedom.

This is the guy the Washington Post pretended was some kind of conservative-leaning libertarian and gave him the beat of covering the conservative movement.

Oh -- Mike Flynn also told me that Dave Weigel looked up to Klein as some kind of Cool Guy BMOC Hero.

There's no political relevance in dishing that up.

It's just so Sad! I thought I should mention it.

I'm more and more convinced that someone's claimed "Libertarianism" has no predictive power at all as far as informing you what their policy preferences will be.

Their partisan affiliation -- simple liberal D vs. conservative R -- will tell you that.

Their "Libertarian" self-identification will only predict what arguments they'll make in favor of their preferred policies. Liberals who claim to be Libertarian will just be standard issue liberals on all topics -- they'll just trot out their "Libertarian" arguments to agitate for liberal policy goals.

They quickly "forget" about their alleged libertarianism when libertarianism might point to a conservative policy outcome.

I see more actual Libertarianism trumping standard political categorization on the right. Right-leaning libertarians can't wait to show they're different than conservatives by adopting liberal positions.

But liberal "Libertarians" never do so.

One More Point: The US troops stationed in Germany were never really expected to hold off a gigantic Soviet invasion, with Soviet troops outnumbering ours 10:1.

They were really there as a tripwire: The Soviets were made to know they could take Germany, but only by attacking US troops, which would invite the US to do their worst in reply.

An armed citizenry doesn't have to defeat the government forces. Gandhi's Indian resistance didn't.

The point of an armed citizenry is to say "NO" to overweening government, and put the government on notice: You can enslave us, but we will not permit you to pretend otherwise. If you mean to enslave us, you'll be forced to physically enslave us.

And kill us.

And that forces the government to decide if it can maintain control of conservative-leaning, freedom-oriented military personnel and cops, ordering them to murder civilians.

That's another kind of tripwire.

Yeah, you can order American soldiers to gun down Americans, but... how many do you think they'll kill before they start thinking that it might be better to point their guns in the opposite direction?

posted by Ace at 04:16 PM

| Access Comments