Note: Op-Eds do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of 2A Daily News, but in this case, it does because I wrote it. : )
Gun grabbers often ask, “What do you need an AR-15/AK-47 for?”
Other than it not being any of their business, let’s discuss some of the reality behind why we own any weapon.
A gun owner would typically respond to the above question with several reasons why he/she wants/needs an AR-15, including the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government, self-defense against criminals, sport shooting, hunting (yes, I said it), or any other reason.
The “fight back against a tyrannical government” response would elicit laughter and mockery from the anti-2A crowd.
“You really think you will defeat the government with that thing? They have tanks, planes, bombs, and the best weaponry in the world!”
Now, let’s put aside the fact that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was for the citizens to be as equally armed as the government.
Let’s also look past the fact that the gun grabber just made the case for us needing to be better armed than just AR-15s and AK-47s.
Let’s instead look at the prospect of a war between the citizens of the United States and our government, which God willing, we don’t ever have to do.
Could we defeat our own government in a war on our own soil?
Now, there is no way to determine who will win an internal conflict between U.S. citizens and their government, but there is a strong possibility that U.S. citizens would be victorious.
The determination of a victor depends on numerous factors, including the size of the war. Is it localized or nationwide?
We will assume this is a full-scale war across the country for the scenario in question.
A full-scale war probably gives U.S. citizens an even better chance of victory in some respects because government troops would not be able to be pulled from other parts of the country to fight in a “localized” conflict.
First, you must understand that when war breaks out, a number of current military members will defect and join the ranks of their citizens.
This would be particularly true of National Guard members who are entrenched members of their communities.
Are National Guard members willing to shoot and kill their family, friends, neighbors, and other people that they live amongst? This is highly unlikely but not out of the question.
While incidents like Hurricane Katrina show that some National Guard members are willing to confiscate weapons from their own citizens, under a full-scale war, you are likely to see many of these troops change sides because they wouldn’t be deployed to other states.
That isn’t to say that everyone would change sides, but my belief is that a large number would.
Second, an armed populace poses a major problem for any standing army.
Having served in Iraq myself, I can tell you that even small arms in the hands of untrained insurgents create havoc for a standing army.
Look at Afghanistan and the standing armies, including Russia, that have been bogged down in long-term conflicts with insurgents who don’t have tanks, planes, and nuclear bombs.
U.S. citizens are better armed, better trained, and have more resources to carry out a war against their own government compared to Middle Eastern insurgents.
Don’t forget that Americans are also very creative. They would be able to disable some of the weaponry owned by the government (think “sticky bombs” from Saving Private Ryan) or create other weapons not currently allowed by law but would most certainly pop up in a war.
Third, many veterans in the United States who served in foreign wars would pose a major problem for the government.
Sure, some veterans could join the ranks of the government in a full-scale war, but those numbers would pale in comparison to the number who defect from the government.
This country’s veterans, including government defectors, will be able to use equipment acquired during the war.
There is a high probability that tanks and other heavy weaponry would be captured by U.S. citizens and used in the fight by veterans who know how to use the equipment.
Fourth, how willing is the U.S. government willing to go in destroying its own country?
Sure, the government would be willing to kill citizens in a full-scale war, but how much damage to their own infrastructure are they willing to endure?
Are they going to destroy entire cities to maintain power?
Will they destroy their own highways, bridges, and other crucial infrastructure to keep power?
Would they be willing to use nuclear bombs on us?
That’s a possibility, but since the war is on our own land, they would be less inclined to do so.
Of course, that all depends on who the tyrant in power is.
In conclusion, yes, U.S. citizens can defeat their own government, even if an AR-15 and AK-47 are all we have to start with.
This article isn’t intended to be an all-encompassing analysis of a full-scale war between U.S. citizens and their government but a simple reminder to gun grabbers that they shouldn’t underestimate the abilities of U.S. citizens to fight tyranny.
American colonists defeated the most powerful army in the world. We could do the same here if necessary.
God willing, it will never come to this.
The Second Amendment, as limited as it is right now, serves as an excellent deterrent for any tyrant. Without it, we would live in a far different America than we are now.
No one should be praying for war.
We hope for peace, and we hope that no one ever takes power in this country who would try to disarm its citizens and risk a costly internal conflict.
A war with the government is going to result in the loss of a lot of innocent lives.
That isn’t something anyone should be hoping for.
For now, we continue to defend our right to keep and bear arms and refuse to compromise with gun grabbers because we know we’ll need everything we have should the day come when we have to use our weapons against a tyrannical government.
-Greg Pruett, President of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance
Note: This Op-Ed was originally written in February 2020 and has had some grammatical fixes and slight changes since then.
