Pro-gun control Democrats will one day realize they’re unintentionally doing more to promote the Second Amendment than even the most ardent gun-rights group.
But that day is not today.
President Joe Biden this week announced a series of initiatives aimed at curbing gun-related violence. As he ticked through his proposals, he took a moment to explain how futile it would be for armed citizens to take on the U.S. government.
“Those who say the blood of lib — ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government,” the president said, poorly recalling the famous Thomas Jefferson quote. “Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
If you’re surprised Biden would toy with the idea of scrambling jets and nuclear weapons against American citizens, you shouldn’t be. The president has been peddling this line for a while.
“Those who say, ‘The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’ – a great line,” he said in February 2020. “Well, guess what: The fact is if you’re going to take on the government, you need an F-15 with Hellfire Missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you.”
Biden is not the only pro-gun control Democrat to engage in such lame rhetoric. In 2018, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California said the same thing.
The lawmaker’s comment came in response to a Twitter user who said, “So basically [Swalwell] wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your f****** mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.”
“And it would be a short war my friend,” responded the congressman. “The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.”
There are several reasons why this sort of thinking is flawed.
First, as to the idea that rifles are useless against a superior military force, the Mujahideen, the Vietcong, and the Continental Army may have something to say about that. Of all people, Joe Biden, who lived through the Vietnam War, the Soviets’ unsuccessful campaign in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War, should not dismiss so casually the idea of an armed insurrection rebuffing the world’s most advanced and best-equipped military.
Second, anti-gun Democrats need to settle on a coherent message. Are AR-15s “weapons of war,” or aren’t they? You can’t argue they’re military-grade weapons, too dangerous to be owned by the average citizen, while also arguing they’re far too weak to compete with actual military weapons.
Third, the “resistance is futile” line from anti-gun Democrats is especially noteworthy given they also maintain a mob very nearly overthrew the U.S. government on Jan. 6. Somehow, civilians armed with rifles stand no chance against the federal government, but rioters came this close to ending American democracy as we know it. Sure.
In this context, the supposed need to regulate firearms that are apparently useless against the government is somewhat puzzling.
Fourth, there is no greater argument in favor of a “well-regulated militia” than the spectacle of the president implicitly threatening to scramble jets and nuclear bombs against dissident citizens. The National Rifle Association couldn’t have come up with a better pro-Second Amendment advertisement if it tried. More seriously, who is writing this stuff for Biden? In what world is “You don’t need a gun because the government can kill all of you at any time” considered an effective and persuasive anti-gun argument?
Pro-gun Democrats not realizing their threats of nuclear holocaust demonstrate perfectly the importance of the Second Amendment remains one of the most amusing curiosities in modern politics.
Indeed, Biden and others are giving a masterclass in how not to sell the general populace on gun-control proposals. If you want to convince someone of the need for a civilian check on the power of the federal government, while also putting them squarely in the same camp as pro-Second Amendment and anti-gun control voices, just show them this clip of the president threatening nuclear war on disobedient civilians.
Fifth, the president’s comments this week revealed he is ignorant of one of the most brilliant, and obvious, aspects of the Second Amendment: It creates a careful balancing act between ruler and ruled. A well-armed militia will obviously be outgunned by a professional military, but that is not the point. The point is that the people can make it very difficult to govern if the intentions of those in power ever become genuinely evil.
When all other checks and balances fail, politicians tempted to subvert the Constitution will still feel themselves constrained by the knowledge they can only overstep the bounds of their office so far before they find an enraged, well-armed citizenry behind every door.
Lastly, it should not be lost on anyone that, in downplaying the importance of maintaining a well-regulated militia, Biden quoted Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, you may recall, played a rather critical role in defeating one of the world’s greatest military forces by a ragtag army consisting of regulars and militiamen.
If Biden were secretly pro-Second Amendment and pro-gun rights, I’m not sure what he would be doing differently.
