Your new essay will enrage all the right people. Lol
I’d been meaning to write something similar for a while. One thing that I believe needs debunking is the idea that guns are ‘the great equalizer’. They’re anything but!
Hand-to-hand combat is ‘equal’. What separates two fighters in hand-to-hand combat is their own skill and courage.
Firearms are a different story. You have pistols? OK, your opponents have rifles. Now what?
You have rifles? OK, your opponents have Gatling guns. Now what?
Fast forward to today and add in drones, fighter jets, rocket launchers, etc. Your militia armed with AR-15s isn’t on equal firepower footing with some local police forces in the US, let alone the US Military. I honestly think this is a reason why all those guys who stockpile guns and stare at maps and think the 2nd Amendment keeps tyranny at bay, have never risen up and never will rise up: because they know the firepower of the government makes them look like harmless garden gnomes.
Owning guns is good for self-defence. In many parts of the US, owning a gun can save your life, but not from the government. From your neighbour or from some roving criminal.
Training with militias can teach you useful and timeless skills which would come in handy in a SHTF situation, but as you say, those scenarios are largely fantasy.
First of all, groups like the Taliban have an organized leadership structure while gun owners in the US are not a unified or organized group with any discernable leadership. Secondly, the Taliban receive massive funding from abroad (including from the US at times) and generate income of their own. Thirdly, empires like the US need to do a cost-benefit analysis on things like the War in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a far off country of limited importance while the United States itself is it's own backyard. Their willingness and capability to crush opposition a home is far greater.
Empires historically have little chance at winning against insurgencies.
The average US citizen has access to rifles, sidearms, body armor, night vision, drone, etc. Couple that with the reality that we would likely see states resist on top of average citizens (See TX currently) which would more than adequately address structured C2 requirements.
Then note that if you were in fact going to send jets and tanks into a US state and kill US citizens, you would create two opponents for every one you take out.
The US vs its citizens would bring the US to its knees IF (and its an IF) the citizens were determined and persistent. Washington did it hundreds of years ago. He could not win in pitched battle, just like no one can win against this US in pitched battel, but no fool would engage in that manner.
Obviously tactical considerations such as mass, location, supply, timing, state support, etc. would all play a huge role. Seeing as most weapon manufacturers are in Red states, I am sure that will play a factor too.
Moral of the story, 2A and associated mindsets are not dreaming even if they can't imagine the difficulties associated with "winning".
Great article. The last paragraph on the myth of spontaneous popular uprising is particularly on point. In the end, the 2nd amendment and the IAT Principle play the same role in the republican / libertarian ideology, that class consciousness plays in the communist one.
Exactly. The IAT doctrine is to the right what "the revolution" is to the left; a pie in the sky fantasy of a quick and total victory for those too lazy to a put in the hard work necessary.
For any successful revolution/resistance to occur, having an armed populace of like minded people to draw from is a “nice to have“. But having a leadership group of popular and influential thinkers who can inspire and then readily serve as an upstart counter elite is crucial. Once empowered, a successful counter elite can then wield its political legitimacy with the normies to shore up and utilise their supporters and/or disarm their opponents.
To put this into a (milder) American RKBA context, the success of the state wide shall issue CCW movement in the nineties wasn’t just about the rise in the number of handgun owners. Its success was driven by a loose network of focused activists from a lot of different state organisations (ALEC, state level NRA, etc) who engaged for years with politicians towards incremental change. This meant also working to oust their opponents and install friendly reps in state house primaries.
Currently, we know that American Federal LE is putting out memos and intelligence primers labelling parental organising for school board elections as possible domestic terrorism and signalling the growth of so called “Trad” Catholic adherents as a worry. This type of local and popular political organising appears to be what keeps the Feds up at night.
What, in your opinion, was the intent of the Founders in including 2A?
The Founders gave us a tool, for whatever purpose, but they could not know how, when or if we might use it, nor with what success. They certainly could not have imagined the Leviathan which emerged. Or, maybe they could and were giving us the best chance they could.
I think it's pretty clear from reading the entire constitution that the purpose of the 2A is to enable the formation of militias, but that those militias would serve the legitimate state authorities. It says in the document that the president is to be the commander and chief of the military, including the militias and that congress has the power to call forth the militias to repel invasions and suppress insurrections.
I think that's a key point which these 2A types today get wrong. They seem to think the 2A was designed to enable insurrections which is clearly not the case. While it is true that the founding fathers were insurrectionists against the British, they weren't going to allow insurrection against the legitimate authorities of their newly founded republic. That would be considered treason. No government would ever allow that. It even says in the document that militias can be used by the legitimate authorities to suppress insurrections.
The Founders provided us an example of illegitimate government and a blueprint for legitimate government. There was much ink spilled regarding the right of the people to ensure legitimate government including the blood of patriots refreshing the tree of liberty from time to time. I would agree that they had no intention of affirming insurrection against legitimate government, which was Lincoln's argument. However, it would seem to me clear that they envisioned the possibility and legitimacy of rebellion against illegitimate rulers. I understand that the rulers would disagree, that is the nature of things.
There would have been no continental congress, at least not as it was, without there being a militia to call upon. And it was the blood of patriots being spilled that compelled it to act. There was much bickering about to respond in the early days of the American revolution. Action forced them, they did not force action.
People say a lot of stupid crap on the internet. Kind of like saying, oh I don't know, that it's dishonorable to sit though mandatory diversity training whilst censoring yourself so you can be on a certain platform.
Your new essay will enrage all the right people. Lol
I’d been meaning to write something similar for a while. One thing that I believe needs debunking is the idea that guns are ‘the great equalizer’. They’re anything but!
Hand-to-hand combat is ‘equal’. What separates two fighters in hand-to-hand combat is their own skill and courage.
Firearms are a different story. You have pistols? OK, your opponents have rifles. Now what?
You have rifles? OK, your opponents have Gatling guns. Now what?
Fast forward to today and add in drones, fighter jets, rocket launchers, etc. Your militia armed with AR-15s isn’t on equal firepower footing with some local police forces in the US, let alone the US Military. I honestly think this is a reason why all those guys who stockpile guns and stare at maps and think the 2nd Amendment keeps tyranny at bay, have never risen up and never will rise up: because they know the firepower of the government makes them look like harmless garden gnomes.
Owning guns is good for self-defence. In many parts of the US, owning a gun can save your life, but not from the government. From your neighbour or from some roving criminal.
Training with militias can teach you useful and timeless skills which would come in handy in a SHTF situation, but as you say, those scenarios are largely fantasy.
Why was the US not able to “win” in Afghanistan against dudes with AKs if what you say is true?
First of all, groups like the Taliban have an organized leadership structure while gun owners in the US are not a unified or organized group with any discernable leadership. Secondly, the Taliban receive massive funding from abroad (including from the US at times) and generate income of their own. Thirdly, empires like the US need to do a cost-benefit analysis on things like the War in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a far off country of limited importance while the United States itself is it's own backyard. Their willingness and capability to crush opposition a home is far greater.
Empires historically have little chance at winning against insurgencies.
The average US citizen has access to rifles, sidearms, body armor, night vision, drone, etc. Couple that with the reality that we would likely see states resist on top of average citizens (See TX currently) which would more than adequately address structured C2 requirements.
Then note that if you were in fact going to send jets and tanks into a US state and kill US citizens, you would create two opponents for every one you take out.
The US vs its citizens would bring the US to its knees IF (and its an IF) the citizens were determined and persistent. Washington did it hundreds of years ago. He could not win in pitched battle, just like no one can win against this US in pitched battel, but no fool would engage in that manner.
Obviously tactical considerations such as mass, location, supply, timing, state support, etc. would all play a huge role. Seeing as most weapon manufacturers are in Red states, I am sure that will play a factor too.
Moral of the story, 2A and associated mindsets are not dreaming even if they can't imagine the difficulties associated with "winning".
Great article. The last paragraph on the myth of spontaneous popular uprising is particularly on point. In the end, the 2nd amendment and the IAT Principle play the same role in the republican / libertarian ideology, that class consciousness plays in the communist one.
Exactly. The IAT doctrine is to the right what "the revolution" is to the left; a pie in the sky fantasy of a quick and total victory for those too lazy to a put in the hard work necessary.
For any successful revolution/resistance to occur, having an armed populace of like minded people to draw from is a “nice to have“. But having a leadership group of popular and influential thinkers who can inspire and then readily serve as an upstart counter elite is crucial. Once empowered, a successful counter elite can then wield its political legitimacy with the normies to shore up and utilise their supporters and/or disarm their opponents.
To put this into a (milder) American RKBA context, the success of the state wide shall issue CCW movement in the nineties wasn’t just about the rise in the number of handgun owners. Its success was driven by a loose network of focused activists from a lot of different state organisations (ALEC, state level NRA, etc) who engaged for years with politicians towards incremental change. This meant also working to oust their opponents and install friendly reps in state house primaries.
Currently, we know that American Federal LE is putting out memos and intelligence primers labelling parental organising for school board elections as possible domestic terrorism and signalling the growth of so called “Trad” Catholic adherents as a worry. This type of local and popular political organising appears to be what keeps the Feds up at night.
This was your best article
What, in your opinion, was the intent of the Founders in including 2A?
The Founders gave us a tool, for whatever purpose, but they could not know how, when or if we might use it, nor with what success. They certainly could not have imagined the Leviathan which emerged. Or, maybe they could and were giving us the best chance they could.
I think it's pretty clear from reading the entire constitution that the purpose of the 2A is to enable the formation of militias, but that those militias would serve the legitimate state authorities. It says in the document that the president is to be the commander and chief of the military, including the militias and that congress has the power to call forth the militias to repel invasions and suppress insurrections.
I think that's a key point which these 2A types today get wrong. They seem to think the 2A was designed to enable insurrections which is clearly not the case. While it is true that the founding fathers were insurrectionists against the British, they weren't going to allow insurrection against the legitimate authorities of their newly founded republic. That would be considered treason. No government would ever allow that. It even says in the document that militias can be used by the legitimate authorities to suppress insurrections.
The Founders provided us an example of illegitimate government and a blueprint for legitimate government. There was much ink spilled regarding the right of the people to ensure legitimate government including the blood of patriots refreshing the tree of liberty from time to time. I would agree that they had no intention of affirming insurrection against legitimate government, which was Lincoln's argument. However, it would seem to me clear that they envisioned the possibility and legitimacy of rebellion against illegitimate rulers. I understand that the rulers would disagree, that is the nature of things.
There would have been no continental congress, at least not as it was, without there being a militia to call upon. And it was the blood of patriots being spilled that compelled it to act. There was much bickering about to respond in the early days of the American revolution. Action forced them, they did not force action.
People say a lot of stupid crap on the internet. Kind of like saying, oh I don't know, that it's dishonorable to sit though mandatory diversity training whilst censoring yourself so you can be on a certain platform.