Two people do not have more rights
than one person, or two hundred, or
two thousand, or two million, any more
than they have more intelligence or decency.
All Enemies Foreign and Domestic
by Jeff Fullerton
Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise
Democratic representative Eric Swalwell made a really provocative statement this week according to an article from Hot Air. Pretty much serving notice that: If we confiscate your guns and you fight back, we will nuke you.
Representative Swalwell sort of gives a disclaimer that he he was not actually advocating nuking Texas or some other disobedient red state or region—but merely trying to make a point in the fashion of the Borg from Star Trek; that resistance is futile and it is the lot of us all to be assimilated—against our will if necessary. The author of the article from Hot Air points out something that my friend and mentor Bruce the Historian pointed out long ago; that there are an awful lot weapons in the hands of private citizens capable of making it hell on earth for any federal troops deployed to disarm the population or engage in the collectivization of property and resources in a martial law scenario. Or forced relocation of people. That’s the real reason they want everyone disarmed. They know from experiences in Vietnam and the “Forever War” in the Middle East; that cracking down with overwhelming force has its limits and once they put off a nuke to burn a town in Texas they might have to burn every square mile of the nation to put an end to the uprising.
Talk about excessive force!
That they’d even talk at all about using a nuclear weapon to put down an internal insurrection proves beyond the shadow of doubt that power hungry politicians are a far deadlier existential threat to us all than any crazed mass shooter or terrorist could ever hope to be!
This congress creature bases his argument on a fallacy which is common assumption among the political class: that because the federal government is capable of mustering overwhelming force—the Second Amendment is obsolete anyway. He already contradicts himself for if we the people are impotent against the overwhelming fire and manpower of the Army and the bombs and missiles of the Air Force—then why are people like him so adamant about disarming the average Joe? I think I already answered that one. The argument that it’s to prevent more mass shootings does not wash because we know they really don’t care about the shooting victims—other than their usefulness as pawns for their cause—just as they prostitute the victims that comprise every other aggrieved pet client group they have cobbled together to make up the majority of the plurality that is the base of the so-called Democratic Party.
There is also the issue of the military itself that the political class ought to take into consideration. It may be less monolithic than assumed. Many of them still believe in the validity of the Constitution and would side with the resistance while others among the loyalist factions would have problems of conscience when it comes to mass slaughter of fellow Americans. Still others might be fearful of the consequences of being held accountable for atrocities or even treason if they end up on the loosing side of things. To attack and kill your own people who you swore to serve and protect is a grievous betrayal. It is treason of the highest order and the punishment for that is death. So if you choose such a course of action and loose the fight; you go down in historic infamy to be remembered like the Nazi war criminals who stood before the Nuremberg tribunals. And you will probably shot or hanged in a public execution!
If the military were given such unlawful orders it would be within their right ( actually their duty) to refuse and even stage a coup and arrest the officials who gave those orders and have them tried for treason. It is part of the constitutional responsibility of members of the armed forces to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies—foreign and DOMESTIC—which is enshrined in the loyalty oath that enlisted personnel and officers take the day they enter the service.
An out of control President or a Congress governing against the restraints set forth in the Bill of Rights constitutes such an enemy. And if they opt for nuclear strikes against their own countrymen they are not only guilty of treason but also attempting to commit crimes against humanity. Since it says in the founding documents that governments are instituted to uphold the inalienable rights of their citizens to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and that the people have the right to alter or abolish any form of government that is destructive to these ends; a regime change will be more than justified.
The next Civil War—if it ever comes to that -may end up looking a lot less like the last one and more like the collapse of the Soviet Union that never escalated to the point many of us had long feared; when the commies turned out not to be the sore losers we expected them to be and did not unleash Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal to start World War 3 and take the rest of the planet with them—but rather opted to stand down and let their nation and ours live on. That I hope will be the worst outcome of any internal conflict in America. The political class should hope so too and maybe quit trying to fan the flames to provoke upheaval and insurrection.
They have far more to loose than most of us do.
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)