Joe Biden is sure fond of talking about fighter aircraft when he’s on the subject of gun control. He did it again at a recent fundraiser in California, Biden said:
You know, I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15.
That wasn’t his first-time referencing US military hardware when talking about civilian gun control. He has talked about fighter aircraft and even nuclear weapons in the past when arguing for the need to “do something.” The “something” being disarming law-abiding Americans. His reference to the use of military force in response to civilian resistance is a recurring theme for Joe.
As with much of what Joe says, I was left wondering what point he was trying to make. Is his fixation on the guns he controls versus the guns we control, an observation, a threat, or a Supreme Court argument?
It’s possible it was a simple observation about the lethality of our military armaments and not meant as any intimidation.
However, it’s obviously a false observation. I’m no military expert. But I know that 100 million Americans, with over 300 million firearms, would be considerably more formidable than the lightly armed, poorly trained, force of 80,000 men that Biden surrendered to in 2021. And the Taliban didn’t have a single F-16.
But his statement seemed considerably more menacing than that, didn’t it?
Could it have been a threat? Maybe it was a Presidential version of: Nice Family you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something happened to them. You know, the kind of threat meant to scare us into compliance, while still providing a bit of plausible deniability.
Biden’s F-16 statement sounded a lot like an endorsement of “might makes right” – that he who has the biggest gun gets to make the rules. Why else would he be reminding us that he controls the most lethal weapons on the planet while discussing domestic legislation?
And what sort of “work against the government” might Biden be referring to? What sort of resistance does he think would warrant an F-16 attack?
- Protesting an election?
- Singing hymns outside an abortion clinic?
- Flying a Gadsden flag?
- Promoting an Article V convention to fight government corruption?
“Working against the government” could mean a lot of things, most of which are protected by the Constitution – including our right to bear arms.
Or did Joe Biden provide us with an astute Supreme Court argument? Thomas Jefferson wrote:
What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
Our founders articulated our right to bear arms as a deterrent to America devolving into tyranny. It was one of their famous checks and balances. They understood that an armed citizenry is an empowered citizenry.
But now our own President is telling us that our military can crush “working against the government,” and he is willing to give that order.
To summarize, our founders gave us the 2nd Amendment as a check against government tyranny. We now find ourselves with a chief executive boasting that the 2nd Amendment is impotent against the military power he commands, and he’s willing to use that military against civilian resistance. That doesn’t sound like an argument that we should give up our rifles. It sounds more like a good Supreme Court brief that the population needs access to better weapons.
Our founders understood that all governments tend towards tyranny over time. Founding Father Noah Webster described how an armed citizenry would set America apart from other experiments in self-governance that have failed:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
Our right to bear arms was included in the Constitution to prevent government officials from behaving like … well, Joe Biden – threatening his own people with the military, should they resist a government which is no longer “of the people, for the people and by the people.”
But surely America could never devolve into tyranny – could it? We’re different, aren’t we? After all, Joe Biden promised a return of dignity and normalcy to the Oval Office. He assured us that he would faithfully serve all Americans. He then followed that assurance with attacks on his political opposition and a threat that resistance is futile – as he has the military power to impose his will. That is what emerging tyranny looks like.
Joe Biden unwittingly provided a very convincing argument, that we would be fools to ever allow ourselves to be disarmed.
