Editorial Says Govt. Would Defeat Armed Rebellion by Making Major Cities Disappear

By David Codrea

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “The idea of ‘armed rebellion’ in the U.S. is ludicrous,” opinion column writer Gregg Littell declares in The Union.

His stated intent is to debunk Ben Carson’s claim that “America will never suffer under tyranny because the people are armed.”

The reason, according to “gun owner and target shooter” Littell, is because unlike in Revolutionary War times, “the arms disparity between a ‘tyrannical government’ and citizens is so huge that the idea of ‘armed rebellion’ is ludicrous.”

He keeps using that word.  After reading the rest of his insane rant, an Inigo Montoya line comes to mind. Because in the past, when subjected to “Resistance is futile” Borg declarations from “progressive” keyboard commandos pointing out the government, after all, has nukes, I’ve noted none of them ever seem to go beyond that platitude and flesh out the full scenario for us.

Refreshingly, Littell has no problem going full totalitarian:

Assuming the military was part of the tyranny (which it would have to be for tyranny to have any meaning), any rebelling national band of “patriots” would be told something like, “you either lay down your arms or the entire city of Dallas, Texas will disappear. You have one hour. If you continue, the next city to disappear will be Atlanta, Georgia.”

No, Littell pontificates, the only thing that will save us from such ruthless tyranny would be to employ Gandhi’s tactics, as if totalitarians who would wipe out city after city in order to bend all to their will would suddenly be thwarted by peaceful refusals to report to work. That not only brings to mind Gandhi’s sentiments on government depriving people of arms, but also evokes a truism from colleague Mike Vanderboegh on his Sipsey Street Irregulars blog:

Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi’s theories of “passive resistance” would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass.

Still, Littell went to the trouble of outlining his “final solution” (how come those always seem, to involve mass exterminations?), so instead of just dismissing it outright, why not examine it?

I don’t know what makes him think the hotbed of militia activity is either Dallas or Atlanta. It seems the nuanced decentralized and distributed nature of modern resistance options vs. infantry squares escapes him, but if he thinks he’s going to wipe out opposition by vaporizing cities that respectively voted overwhelmingly for Obama and that both belong to Bloomberg’s Mayors Against (Your) Guns, he may want to reexamine his premises.

While he’s at it, he may also wish to explain to The Union readers why his grand plan for demanding obedience disproportionately kills minorities in comparison to demographics for the general population: Per 2010 race and ethnicity stats, non-Hispanic whites make up 63.7% of the U.S. population. In Dallas, they comprise and 50.7%, and in Atlanta, 41.8%. That’s a lot of black and brown people Littell envisions incinerated in order to force presumably white “patriots” to toe his line. A lot of Democrats, too, and a lot of politicians, police, teachers, doctors, firefighters, union members, children, elderly…

If that type of directed “collateral damage” doesn’t qualify as genocide/war crimes, then the concepts are meaningless. The U.S. government has come up with war justifications by accusing Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad of much smaller extermination efforts against “their own people.” What American wouldn’t take up arms against such monsters doing that on a huge scale here? Aside from traitors and despicable cowards?

And since Littell brought up the subject of the military carrying out his deranged little genocide fantasy, perhaps he could also address how the Uniform Code of Military Justice only requires obeying lawful commands, and how “I was just following orders” hasn’t worked since Nuremberg. Maybe, since he’s been so right about everything else, he could give us a credible estimate of how many would obey orders to level Dallas and Atlanta and more, as opposed to placing the crazy Commander in Chief proposing such insanity under arrest.

What makes him confident that service personnel – even those who aren’t active Oath Keepers – would set off nukes in places where many of them have family?

He might also let us know how many military personnel will have to be redeployed domestically from overseas and what will happen to the areas of operation they vacate (along with how that will impact U.S. foreign policy and strategic defense capabilities). It would probably also be a good idea to give a best guess about what opportunistic “competitors” Russia and China will be doing, as well as outright enemies like the Islamic State.

And we can’t forget the economic collapse.

It would be incalculable, enough to bring any administration down simply by the millions suddenly in the streets. And it will directly impact the guys who pull the politicians’ strings.

But the most insane disconnect from reality is that armed citizens wouldn’t stand a chance.  The guy has been wrong about everything else, so we might as well see if he’s finally on to something.

There’s something like 100M gun owners. A growing movement is built around the estimate that Three Percent of the population took to the field in the Revolutionary War, and that was enough to drive out the most powerful empire in the world.  Say that’s high, and let’s cut things back to just one percent.

That’s a million angry guys with guns, and they’re for the most part the serious ones, who have prepared and trained, many with extensive military backgrounds.

With the understanding that such citizens are everywhere, prepared to act on their own initiative on targets at times and places of their choosing, situations for the shot-callers and their functionaries, as well as those providing supplies and services to enable the logistics of a tyranny, suddenly become problematic. They also become personally dangerous, for them and for their protectors. And with up to 20% of cops going AWOL during times of localized trouble like Katrina, imagine how defections would grow if opposition sprang up everywhere, and if they had personal skin in the game.

Wait a minute – am I talking about assassinating politicians all the way to the top, along with bureaucrats, soldiers and police, and even civilian support personnel and facilities?  

Using Bill Clinton’s rules of engagement, we could even include enemy propagandists.

Hey, it’s not my scenario, it’s Littell’s. His hypothetical tyrants are vaporizing innocent human beings and leveling cities. They’re the monsters acting as domestic enemies, outside of the restraints (and the protections) of the Constitution, criminally depriving Americans of life, liberty and property.  Hell yes I’d shoot an evil mandarin or a thug minion doing that, and any politician, bureaucrat, citizen, solider or police officer worth his salt would be joining me.

So what chance would such a resistance stand, despite Littell’s “expert” opinion? Recall that Muhammad and Malvo kept the Beltway region in a panic for weeks, with the head LEO allowing his racial bias to expend resources looking for the wrong profile. Recall that cops in SoCal ended up shooting at newspaper delivery women in their panic, while the shooter they were looking for—one of their own, and a “gun control” advocate and Obama/Hillary admirer at that – eluded them in spite of letting everyone know who he was in a “manifesto.”

Now imagine a million armed Americans with better sense than that, intent on restoring the Constitution and capable of selecting legitimate oppressor, equipment and infrastructure targets supporting the bloodthirsty tyranny Littell envisions. There just aren’t enough bodyguards and sentries.

When I first ran across this “editorial,” I was hoping it was just a satire, and I’d somehow missed the point, but Littell has played “the nuclear card” before when advocating “common sense [gun] reforms” and disparaging armed resistance to tyranny. And what he doesn’t grok is that the line in the sand for those of us who will not comply is mass enforcement of the very edicts he endorses. That would not be possible without a nationwide program to collect the firearms and magazines he maintains would be useless.

No, to anyone contemplating that, including proponents of a nuclear deterrent. We will not comply. Your move.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.