Ever. The idea that if our government became an oppressive tyranny then it would all be over. Slaves and serfdom, gulags and gas chambers. It would all be over. Nobody could do anything. We would all just die. Hopeless, helpless, just give up and surrender. For tens of thousands of years, perhaps people did rise up and accomplish the unimaginable. But that's over. We're hopeless. We can't. We lose. That's the gist of the argument, and I've seen it more than once.
All I can say is thank goodness all the great heroes of old didn't accept such a fatalistic and defeatist attitude toward overwhelming adversity!
Donald McClarey has the most obvious reason why that is full of bunk. First, it's nice to know that not everyone is basically using notions of piety and principle to cover up what is likely just cowardice and apathy.
Second, if America has demonstrated anything, it's that our military is ill-equipped for dealing with extended insurgencies. And that's against insurgencies that sometimes number in the mere thousands and involve people living in poverty stricken, 'third world' settings. If only a fraction of the United States rose up, it isn't hard to imagine an insurgency in the millions. That assumes, of course, that everyone in the military would be willing to begin slaughtering neighbor and family on demand. America's ages old blood line of freedom and liberty might just get enough of the military to rebel against such tyranny - go Confederate you might say.
Of course we should have figured that many countries might be happy to see America fail as a free country, so help from outside would be difficult to predict. But there are friends around the world just the same.
No, America's military is at its best against strong armies meeting us on the field of combat with weapons versus weapons of like kind. It's been those rebellions and insurgencies using guerrilla warfare that have given us our losses and confounded our military designs.
You'd think almost all Americans would be appalled at such a defeatist attitude that is based on a demonstrably false analysis of our military and its history. And yet, it's a sign of the times that I'd wager a fair number of Americans would cheer such an editorial, even if they would never be caught dead doing something like cheering the flag.
As I said over on McClarey's piece:
ReplyDeleteShermer’s statistical sources only consider defensive gun uses in which the aggressor is shot, treated, and identified as having been shot justifiably. Over 90% of defensive gun uses (estimated at 2.5 million/year in 1994; who knows how many now) involve no shooting at all. And there’s no telling what percentage of those where the defender shot, he missed.
Yep, that's another hole in the gun control argument. Instead of dealing with that very real part of gun ownership in our country, they act like it doesn't exist. And if anyone brings up one of hundreds of examples (we've had three in our neck of the woods), they are often mocked and laughed at as if they're talking about Big Foot sightings.
Delete