July 27, 2005

Some are sure that an armed citizenry would still be able to stand up against a tyrannical government, given the arms available in most American households. They often point out that the armed nature of the average American is why the Japanese decided to forego a land invasion of the US during World War II. Others are sure that, since the government definitely has the upper hand in technology and firepower, resistance by armed citizens must be even more futile than trying to fight being assimilated by the Borg, and that the historical application of the Second Amendment as the citizen's last resort against tyranny is a dead letter in today's world.

In fact, an armed citizenry is, right now, resisting what they see as tyranny being imposed by our government.

"Huh!?", you say. And then you want to know, "Who? Where?".

Right now, and for the last two years, an armed citizenry has been resisting our government in Iraq. It's just that we don't think about them that way. Our major media and our government are always careful to use the words "terrorists" and "insurgents" when talking about the Iraqis that are fighting our soldiers. Those words make it harder to think of these fighters as people, but they are. As far as they're concerned, they are protecting their homes and families against soldiers from another country. Maybe some of these people liked Saddam Hussein and maybe others are glad he's gone. The point where they seem to be united, though, is that they want our government gone from their country - and they've been willing to keep fighting the US Army for the last two years, trying to get the soldiers to leave. In fact, they've had a fair amount of success. Our soldiers are still there, but they have not been having an easy time of it. Iraq has not been anywhere near the "cakewalk" it was originally touted as.

Meanwhile, our soldiers, who are also people, continue to come home maimed or in body bags from fighting these "terrorists" and "insurgents" who would really just prefer that we get out of their country, for the most part. While this is going on, we get new proclamations from our government every week about how well the war is going, about some supposed "milestone" we've hit, and about how we ought to be able to wrap things up soon. Ever notice how they flatly refuse to put a date on "soon"? And about how casualty amounts seem to stay at about an average per week? It starts to get a little Orwellian sounding after a while. Are we fighting Eurasia or Eastasia?

Whichever it is, our soldiers, who are all somebody's child, spouse, or parent, are fighting the Iraqis, who are also all people, part of families and have homes that they love and feel they are defending. Those Iraqis, who are armed about as well as Americans are, but are only less than 10% in number, are putting up a pretty stiff armed resistance to our government. Will they ultimately be successful? Who knows? But they seem willing to keep trying.

To me, this is the answer to the debate about whether armed citizen resistance to tyranny is possible here. If the Iraqis can do it, so can we, if the need arises. The reason the Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment in the Constitution--to allow the people to defend themselves from tyranny, should the need arise, is far from a moot point today.

(Editor's note: One great difference is the willingness of many in Iraq to murder innocent bystanders who are also their own people! That, and a fairly consistent disregard for the sanctity of life makes it much easier for them to stage a "no holds barred" resistance. The comparison is valid in some points, of course, but we must be aware that most of our people do not have the fatalistic drive and self-discipline shown by many in Iraq. Just owning a gun is insufficient qualification for armed resistance to an invasion.)