Against citizen disarmament tyranny, resistance is far from futile

By | February 12, 2013

When gun rights advocates point out that the vital importance of the Second Amendment is in protecting the people’s right to the means of effectively resisting the tyranny of an out of control government, proponents of oppressive gun laws generally have a quick reply. “But you and your guns stand no chance against a modern, powerful military, especially a superpower like the U.S.” Very often, they actually bring up the government’s nuclear weapons as a reason that “resistance is futile” – as if a would-be dictator would want to rule a blasted, radioactive charnel house.

This ignores the rather difficult to miss fact that the U.S, superpower or not, has been fought to standstill in counterinsurgency conflicts more than once, including quite recently. Those enemies have no fighter jets, no nuclear submarines (or any other kind of submarines), no helicopter gunships and no tanks (and certainly no nuclear weapons) – and yet they remain undefeated. It also ignores the fact that any resistance will not be limited to guns.

Those still unconvinced that an armed American citizenry can effectively resist a tyrannical government are missing still more critical information, some of which is just now coming to light.

First, the resistance is very unlikely to need to defeat the entire government. The body of those who enforce the government’s will – police officers, military service members, etc. – is, after all, not entirely composed of oath breakers, willing to obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) orders, like confiscating citizens’ guns. Some, indeed, have openly reaffirmed their oath to the Constitution, and have publicly vowed to disobey any such orders, specifically listing gun confiscation orders first among those they will disobey…

2 thoughts on “Against citizen disarmament tyranny, resistance is far from futile

Leave a Reply