Let me be clear, as Obama likes to say: You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns.
When President Obama praises gun confiscation, he’s praising the blatantly unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment by the federal government. Let’s not mince words here: he’s supporting a policy, that if he or any future government attempted to implement it, will lead to a nationwide armed insurrection that would likely destroy our government and our way of life.
We’ve read articles before praising the theory of confiscation, and note the disturbing mindset of those who would see Americans stripped of their most basic of human rights—the right to self-defense—under the threat of overwhelming government force.
Some have such a visceral hatred for gun owners that they seem to relish the thought of their fellow Americans being slaughtered (indeed, that seems to be the continuing hope of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who have repeatedly referred to gun owners as “insurrectionists”).
These vengeful, hate-filled souls seem to have a fantasy that such a conflict would be a 1860s-style affair, where armed citizens resisting would line up in neat rows in an open field to be mowed down by government tanks and helicopters, much to their shrieking delight.
Those sick souls advocating for gun confiscation and civil strife seem to think that such a conflict would be something that would happen to “someone else.” They seem to have it in their minds that others in the military and law enforcement would do the dirty work of making their fantasies come to life, and that when the dust settled, they’d have a gun free nation, at no cost to themselves.
That is decidedly not how such a conflict would be fought, nor is it likely that they survive to see such an outcome.
They seem to forget that a significant percentage of the military and law enforcement officers that would be charged with enforcing their unconstitutional edicts are themselves, “gun nuts.” This is particularly true among the combat arms units within the military, police SWAT/ERT units and most sheriff’s departments, from the Sheriff’s themselves down through the ranks of their deputies.
Almost all of these individuals—currently, roughly 2 million soldiers, Marines, airmen, guardsmen, and reserves, and 800,000 law enforcement officers—swore their oaths to defend the Constitution, not any particular government, political party, or administration.
A significant number of would resign outright if the government ordered them to confiscate the arms of America citizens. Many others would defect as opportunity allowed, bringing along their expertise, intelligence, and perhaps their weaponry to wage war against the government. Others would remain on the job, but would not enforce the confiscation orders with any enthusiasm, and might stay on the job merely to pass along intelligence to their allies fighting on the side of the Constitution.
Those that defect would join a resistance composed of recently detached military combat veterans from the Afghan and Iraq wars with an intimate knowledge of insurgency and counterinsurgency tactics. It is impossible to know just how many of these veterans or others among the 80 million gun owners in this nation would choose to participate in active or passive resistance, but the figure would almost assuredly dwarf the number of poorly trained insurgents our military faced overseas in battles that continue to this day.
The remaining combined forces of government, now numbering something less than 1.5 million, would be charged with securing a nation of 318 million souls and 3.794 million square miles, not knowing who their enemies are, knowing that they and their families would be targets 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 a year, every year, in a war without front lines, a clearly defined enemy, or rules of engagement.