Options For The Unthinkable

There is talk percolating out of Washington D.C. regarding executive orders to “get things done”, coming most recently from the vice president Joe Biden.  Lots of people saying that they will not turn in their weapons and will defy such orders, the author of this article included.  The problem then becomes, if somehow a ban is instituted, or a near ban, what shape should defiance take?  Below are some options being bandied about, with pros and cons listed for each, in a non-exhaustive critique.

“I Lost All My Guns Last Week/My Guns Were Stolen”

This is an appealing call for gun owners to in essence claim that they are no longer gun owners.  There’s a presumption that the firearms will not be on the premises when the goon squads come to collect.  The idea is that the gun owner covertly retains his firearms, but that they remain hidden for some future date uprising or re-establishment of firearms rights.

PROS:

The gun owner might keep his firearms, assuming he has them hidden well enough and has them off site long before the goons show up.

The gun owner can retrieve and use his firearms for a future action, or for future re-establishment of his rights.

CONS:

Buried guns can be found.  We call the devices that do this metal detectors. 

By temporarily disarming, the gun owner makes himself unavailable to defend his neighbor when his neighbor is raided, which contributes to a net loss of firearms in the hands of free men.

By stashing firearms, while the rest of the nation is being disarmed, the gun owner now becomes a near singularity.  His buried or hidden firearms now become nearly useless, since other gun owners who might have been able to stand with him when called, are now disarmed.  This makes the gun owner into nothing more or less than “some wacky lone nut” when he finally decides to do something, which odds say that he won’t.

THE REALITY:

The best time to use your 2nd Amendment rights is when the government comes to deny those rights to you.  The nation will never be more armed than it is today if it is disarmed tomorrow.  By not standing when one should to deny confiscation, one creates an environment where nobody can stand to defend the 2nd Amendment in the future.  Lone nut gunmen are easily neutralized and dealt with, and the propaganda machine is in place to ensure that every non-compliant gun-hider is demonized to the n-th degree as each one is discovered or outs himself.

 

“Overwhelm The System”

Overwhelming the system is a theoretically pacifist approach to mass disarmament.  The theory goes that millions of gun owners declare openly that they are gun owners, and then demand arrest.  The government clearly cannot put 50 – 100 million people in jail without causing the system to collapse.  When they realize their impotence, they’ll stop cold.

PROS:

Minimal violence and few people get hurt.

In compliance with pacifism and with many religious beliefs.

The system could NOT handle that amount of individuals in its prisons.

 

CONS:

You lose your firearms necessarily, since you place yourself before the police and demand to be arrested specifically for owning firearms.

If the theory goes as planned, you likely spend no small amount of time in prison.

To be effective, all gun owners would need to participate.  If there’s a hint of violence from non-participating gun owners, the pacifist approach will buy none of the participants anything but harsh, brutal treatment.

THE REALITY:

This entire theory is an exercise in extreme naiveté.  There has never been an example of this working in history regarding disarmament.  Furthermore, it presumes that gun owners will get the first move.  The fact of the matter is that the government will arrest nobody but violent dissenters.  The actual sequence of events will go like this.  Break down door.  Hog tie the family.  Kick the pregnant wife in the stomach. Stand with their boots on the occupants heads.  Shoot the pets. Confiscate firearms.  The last man out the door has a buddy with a gun pointed at your head as he uncuffs you.  They smile, say “thank you for your cooperation ‘sir’” and leave.  You are now disarmed, the system is underwhelmed, and guess what, you’re a serf.

Or better put, if this strategy actually worked, the Chinese would own the world simply by showing up at every border and saying “arrest us”.  Ask yourself why they don’t.

 

“I’ll Sit In My House And Resist! They Won’t Get My Guns Without My Dead Finger On The Trigger!”

The theory here is that one can take out a lot of goons before being killed.  It has a built in presumption of suicide-by-cop, so there are no surprises when considering this theory.  Similar tangents of this are going out in a blaze of glory, or standing on the rubble defiantly as a member of the 300 and winning a victory of morality if not the actual battle.

PROS:

The gun owner takes out some goons, maybe.

Creates fear in the ranks of the goon squads, not allowing them a cavalier attitude about disarming the serfs.

A heightened use of resources will be required to take down Blaze of Glory folks, which hurts the goons logistically.

 

CONS:

The gun owner gets to die.  While a con, at least this is assumed from the beginning of the theory, so it’s not a surprise.

All former Blaze of Glory scenarios in history have resulted in 0.0% reduction in state power or state abuse.

The guns eventually end up in the armories or melting pots of the goons.

Knowledgeable firearms advocates are no longer present to pass on the torch of resistance or even basic knowledge of individual rights.

THE REALITY:

The nation, all nations, have witnessed the Blaze of Glory or heard about it in the media.  Lone isolated actions, or even small group action that locks itself down to an indefensible bunker, whether a home or a “compound”, defies military logic for winning battles and wars.  Strictly defensive positions are innately vulnerable to being overwhelmed by an offensive, mobile force.  If an entire cul-de-sac in a subdivision locks down in their homes and fires at the whites of the goons eyes, an A-10 makes short work of that cul-de-sac.  By restricting oneself to a defensive, easily destroyed bunker, one allows the enemy to bring the conflict to the victim on the terms of the enemy, which is one of the prime no-no’s in all historical and modern tactical and strategic writings, and for good reason, it never works.  The Maginot line failed for these reasons.  Styrofoam and plastic siding covered homes will fare far worse, far more quickly.

“Organize and Resist/Secession”

The theory is that groups of individuals should organize into a hierarchy or structure, make plans, and resist the powers that be with offense based tactics.  This is in essence a call for guerilla warfare at a minimum, all the way up to a full-fledged war involving entire divisions or armies, potentially.  Secession is included since any real secessionist movement would trigger the same reactions from the state.

PROS:

This is the only known way to actually bring down a tyrannical government that is strong, financed and intent on oppressing its citizens.

The resistance has a huge tactical advantage initially, insofar as a resistance member looks like any other citizen on the street.  There’s no real way to differentiate unidentified resistance members from the general population, and the resistance movement has the advantage of being able to gather intelligence on known agents of the state, all of whom are either uniformed or have very clear physical designators of their position.  This advantage erodes over time though.

The amount of manpower available as resistance in these united States stands at approximately 110 million, which is a number derived from known gun owners.  Assuming that half of this number fold and are cowards, that still leaves a standing 50 to 60 million man force, many to most of them trained by the military.  The combined armed forces of the united States is approximately 1.4 million bodies.  Do the math.

It relies on mobility and offense, as opposed to hunkering down in defense, as its strategy to ultimately win.  History is always on the side of the active and mobile.

 

CONS:

Lots of death.  Lots and lots of death on all sides. 

Civil war and the collapse of society as we know it, which in this day and age could see foreign intervention, or U.N. intervention, on American soil as international powers try to move in to claim some of the spoils.

Nuclear capability becomes chaotic, with a very strong chance of the resistance capturing at least some nuclear weapons. The threat of thermonuclear war thus becomes a possibility, however remote.

No guaranteed outcome; the government could still win, and then the real tyranny slams the nation, and hard.  Think Hunger Games, without any redeeming features.

 

THE REALITY:

Civil wars are bloody, horrible and hellish beyond description.  There are no guaranteed outcomes, and the state that replaces any deposed government may well be as bad or even worse than the government it deposed.  However, this is the only real way to remove overbearing, financed and well supplied tyrannies.

 

In summary, there are no real options that work, outside of organized resistance.  Even then, the outcomes are not assured and the normal rules of war and engagement apply.  What is known however is that turning oneself in to authorities or going out in a blaze of glory are fantastic fantasies that one may thrill reading about in a book, but which do nothing but ensure the total disarmament of the nation.

There are no options but non-compliance at this point, no matter how small or large the efforts are to disarm us or even mildly restrict our natural rights.  But make that non-compliance mean something.  Get together with neighbors, friends and sympathetic family and start talking, now, today.  Figure out your plan and start training.  This is not only the requirement of resistance, it’s the exercise of our very duties as the militia the Founders counted on to be the last bastion against tyranny.

 

Author:  Michael Campbell, Lewis Center, Ohio