What would happen if it came down to an armed conflict within the United States, a Revolution 2.0 – We The People vs the U.S. Government? This has been an underlying conversation within the gun rights vs gun control debate for some time. Ironically, those who are against guns will in one breath argue:
“Why do you need a military grade assault weapon?”
And in the next breath argue:
“What good is your AR-15 against tanks and drones and nuclear weapons?”
Let me just address the “Nuke Thing” right off the bat. I could be wrong, but I’m fairly certain that in a Revolution 2.0 scenario, nuclear weapons would most likely be “off the table.” Dropping a nuke in your own backyard is probably not the best option and being the king or dictator of a nuclear wasteland seems somewhat anti-climactic, what with all your resources being irradiated and all. So please, enough with the nuclear weapons already.
This all revolves around the 2nd Amendment, so let’s begin with it’s actual purpose, briefly, and the video below will discuss it in a bit more detail for those interested.
First, it’s not about hunting or shooting skeet or even self-defense, although all of those are fringe benefits of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was written for two reasons, first and foremost is was written as a specific protection of a natural right from government restriction. The first law of nature is self-preservation and self-preservation is dependent upon having the ability to protect and defend oneself against any threat to your continued existence. Secondly, it was written to guarantee that “We The People” would be able to defend the newly created United States AND defend ourselves FROM the government they had created if need be.
Therein lies the underlying debate about the types of weapons that American citizens have a right to, regardless of any real or perceived need for them at any given time. So, do we “NEED” any particular weapon or weapon system to defend ourselves against armed government tyranny right now? No, not really. The odds of government agents, law enforcement or military, overtly enforcing tyrannical oppression upon the American people any time in the foreseeable future are slim to none. That being said, there have been and will continue to be individual incidents of government oppression like Kent State, Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, post-Katrina gun confiscations, etc.
So, if the threat is so slim, why fight to keep “assault weapons”? Well, the answer to that is the same now as it was when the 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago. Not that our government was or is tyrannical, but that any government can become tyrannical. One of the many ironies of the anti-gun movement is the use of the phrase “Common Sense” in relation to gun control proposals. I say it is ironic because one of our Founders, Thomas Paine, summed up “government,” in his pamphlet titled “Common Sense,” this way:
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”
When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they elaborated on that view of government, as well as the People’s propensity to suffer through the excessive evils of government.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s say that we do enact strict and draconian gun control. After all there is no pressing need or threat of tyrannical oppression at the moment, right? When the “train of abuses and usurpations,” which have already begun, reaches the point of “absolute Despotism” then how exactly is an unarmed population to “throw off such Government?” In the American Revolution 2.0 we would be facing those same tanks, planes, drones and well armed and trained troops with what, Harsh Words? I mean, we have already been denied access to “military grade weapons” such as select-fire automatic weapons, explosive devises, etc. for the most part. Yes, a select few can get them under VERY tight government regulation and the government knows exactly who has them and what they have, so they’ll be the first to go. Now they want to get rid of semi-automatic rifles that LOOK LIKE military rifles and some even advocate for banning all semi-automatic handguns and rifles all together. Leaving We The People with little more than revolvers and single-shot or manually operated rifles, again potentially facing planes and tanks, etc…
Now that we have addressed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and the disparity of arms between We The People and the government, what would an actual American Revolution 2.0 look like and would We The people stand a chance? Assuming we maintain the status quo, We The People are severely outgunned facing off against tanks, planes, drones, artillery and troops armed with fully automatic weapons. Sounds pretty hopeless, right? Well, not so fast, we just might still have the odds in our favor. While we may not have the most advanced weapons, we do still have A LOT of weapons and A LOT of people to man those weapons. Estimates say that there are almost as many guns in circulation in the United States as there are people, for the sake of round numbers let’s say about 300 MILLION. Military combat personnel and United States law enforcement combined are about 3 million “government troops.” So to start with we outnumber them about 100 to 1 and that’s not including the patriotic military and law enforcement personnel who would join We The People in a battle against a tyrannical government. They would most likely bring their “government issued” toys with them as well.
Granted, there will be those in the military and law enforcement ranks who will “follow orders,” but what exactly will they be up against in a Revolution 2.0? Set aside the evil “assault weapons” for a moment and just consider the American Hunter. If you look at the number of hunting licenses issued every year, you’ll see that there are roughly 36 million American Hunters on average year to year and those are just the ones who purchase a hunting license in any given year. American Hunters alone outnumber the 10 largest standing armies in the world, COMBINED. That’s 36 million men and women with high-powered hunting/sniper rifles and the knowledge and skill to hunt their prey in the worst of conditions. Even with all the planes and drones, tanks and artillery, or even satellites and nukes, at some point in order to subdue and oppress a population it will take “boots on the ground.” Even if every combat troop and law enforcement agent in America just “follows orders” that’s still only about 3 million troops vs 36 million potential snipers with a desire to remain free.
We are at a crossroads in America where we must make a choice. Do we continue down this road of ever-increasing gun control or do we choose a new course. Even in our current state of being armed with lesser weapons than government forces, the American people are still a formidable force to be reckoned with, which deters and diminishes the immediate threat of oppression through force of arms. As technology advances, so will military arms and at some point the military and law enforcement may be able to overcome our significant numbers advantage. There is also the possibility of chemical or biological weapons being used to overcome that numbers advantage. The point being, if we continue to reduce the number and quality of weapons available to the average American citizen, eventually there will be little if any deterrent to government’s use of force.
While we may not be in immediate danger of government tyranny, there are forces within the American Population who think we need a Revolution 2.0 in order to regain control of our bloated, corrupt and increasingly oppressive government. Patriots in the tradition of our Founders see their role as a defense against tyranny rather than an offensive force, choosing to use the political tools our Founders gave us rather than take up arms. However, we must also look to the future (as our Founders did) and secure the blessings of Liberty for our posterity. Our children and grandchildren will be the beneficiaries or the victims of our choices today. Do we deny them their natural right of self-preservation and hope for the best? Or do we secure their rights today, reclaim the rights that have already been infringed and protect their ability to successfully engage in a Revolution 2.0 if need be in order for them to be and to remain free for generations to come?