[COPY] Do You Need an F15?

Or Maybe Just a Howitzer

Originally published in October 2023. Updated.

We have been told by the Commander in Chief (Biden at that time) that in a potential uprising, God forbid, that the citizenry would be helpless due to the technological disparity between civilians and the government, and he says that they would need F-15s and similar hardware.

A few thoughts. If you feel like his statement insults your intelligence, it's because it does. I think this is a type of propaganda wherein the perpetrator is in effect falsely stating the beliefs of his opponents since no one in his right mind thinks that an ordinary group of Americans, even if made up of combat arms veterans, formed into a militia that is properly trained, well led and regularly exercised, could win a standup battle against the U.S. military. The propaganda consists of him in effect saying that they do, in fact, believe that they can. Implicit in the president's argument is that the citizenry would engage in pitched battles, though they would not be so foolish.

It’s a type of disparagement. The enlightened of the blue cities have another reason to look down on the poor, benighted rubes and laugh at their simple mindedness, making use of people's natural desire to see themselves as among the wisest and most enlightened, a version of the “emperor's new clothes” story. It is most effective on what we might call “level one thinkers,” who do not think ahead or think things through very much. More mature thinkers would think things like, “they are really not less intelligent than we are out in fly-over country, so this is fishy.” They fall for the first rule of propaganda, the rule of simplification - reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'. As people mature they are more likely to think things through, and become less susceptible, they think ahead more and think about consequences.

Consider the statement itself. They presuppose that the military would simply follow orders and fire on civilians, and that they would back the regime. Upon joining the U.S. military one takes an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, (an oath I took myself). A law that is unconstitutional is invalid, and an unconstitutional order is invalid. This has actual legal consequences. How it would play out is uncertain, but it seems unlikely that the military would uniformly follow a government turned totalitarian.

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." ~ John F. Kennedy

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." ~ John F. Kennedy

In the per-revolutionary days of our country all adult males between certain ages were required to be in the militia, roughly ¼ of the population. (½ are male, and ½ of them are in the right age group and healthy enough. You were exempt if at sea.) This leads us to some Revolutionary War insights.

The Battle of Bennington in Vermont in 1777 took place before the battle of Saratoga. British general John Burgoyne was marching south toward Albany with a view of dividing the colonies. He had retaken Fort Ticonderoga, but was being harassed along the march. He decided that he needed horses and some other supplies, so he sent a contingent to the town of Bennington to collect them, possibly expecting things to follow the European model; troops come into town, some people resist and are shot, supplies and horses are confiscated, lunch is provided by an unwilling populace, and a few of the young ladies are sampled. But it did not go that way since the local populace, organized into a militia, and led by General John Stark fought them off. Though no doubt highly trained, there is not much General Stark could have done without the armed citizens, who would have been victimized if they had been unarmed. (They would have lost their horses at the very least, as though all of your town's cars were confiscated.)

https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Bennington-1777

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/john-burgoyne-campaign-to-saratoga/

But now we are assured that we are totally at the mercy of the government; resistance is futile. One wonders if this is just a psychological ploy to help create a nation of serfs.

Of course one might argue, that was then, this is now. But is it? The U.S. was not able to control the Afghans, how would they do against a much larger nation containing the world's best weapons makers? It is not just a matter of battles, it's about what can and cannot be done, where can you travel, who can you trust and who can you control?

The President's statement about needing F-15's might be intended for his base. A large group of the “elites” have abandoned America in search of greater wealth, sending jobs overseas, bringing in replacement workers from third world countries and creating financial disaster in the heartland. (They were shocked when Trump was elected, the only candidate willing to be on the side of the majority of Americans.) They may well be frightened of the great body of Americans so affected, and actually be fearful of the potential consequences. Telling them that there is nothing to worry about, the rubes don't have F-15s, is a way of showing that they will be protected from their action's consequences.

Then there is California Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell. He proposed that the government “buy back” what they have never owned, “assault weapons” owned by Americans. When challenged on Twitter that trying that might lead to civil war, he said that it would be a short war since the government has nukes. I don't think he really was threatening Americans with nuclear weapons, he was just indulging in the same type of statist fantasy displayed by the President. I get the impression he really believed it was an iron-clad, unbeatable argument, which I think is quite telling. Many of the Left's leaders believe their own propaganda.

Much of the thinking we see in the political realm can be summed up as, “It can't be true, therefore it's not.” One gets the impression that Swalwell actually believes that confiscating weapons will make the country safer.

Why are the elites so invested in disarming the people? Possibly they feel like they cannot truly control the people until they have the power of the unchallenged knock on the door in the middle of the night, and that's what they want.

I will end this with quotes of Thomas Jefferson, courtesy of AZQuotes

https://www.azquotes.com/author/7392-Thomas_Jefferson

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"There is no justification for taking away individuals' freedom in the guise of public safety." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Stay brave, stay free.