The United
States is the most armed nation in the world. There are 90 guns for every 100
Americans. LINK
I would want to
see that figure doubled and more – 2 guns for every American – if my goal were
to conquer the United States in ten years. If I wanted to do the job in five
years, I would encourage the growth of local militias.
I am not here to discuss how absurd it is
to imagine that freedom can be protected by guns in a computerized world. The
government hardly needs to confiscate guns to take away freedom, and
corporations take your money and your rights with your consent. The point is
that some Americans believe they can protect their freedom with firearms, or
say they do. (Interesting. People say the ISIS are mad dogs because they think
they can enforce Sharia law with guns, and still some people think freedom can
be protected by guns.)
So, if I were
out to conquer the US, it would be easy to provoke some confrontation in which
guns were drawn to “protect freedom.” Protect it from who? The authorities, of
course, who do not take kindly to that sort of behavior. They would necessarily
take immediate steps to put down the insurrection. This would most likely lead
to something like the confrontation between the authorities and the Branch
Davidians at Waco, Texas. Remember who won that one?
This might
possibly incite widespread insurrection (all Waco did was lead to the Oklahoma
City bombing and police departments beefing up their weaponry). Here is where
the authorities have the upper hand: established centralized authority. No
matter how loopy some law enforcement agencies are, a firefight between the
sheriffs of County A and the police in County B is almost inconceivable. Groups
of armed shooters “protecting their freedom” are under no such constraints; two
groups of armed shooters might cooperate with each other, but broad alliances
are almost inconceivable, and local militias would make the fight even more
exciting. (My reasoning is thus: anybody who would shoot other people and turn
his own homeland into a warzone in order to “protect his own rights” does not
tolerate different opinions; in the absence of a fighting institution such as
the Army or Marine Corps, if he is to be led at all, he will be led only by an
alpha male who has fought his way to the top by eliminating anybody who does
not follow his commands; such a leader does not tolerate other leaders in his
territory.)
Several events
could follow. A very unlikely event would be that once the “freedom protectors”
had slaughtered enough of each other, sort of like the eliminations in a
championship, a strong figure would emerge who could hold the fighting factions
in line enough to conquer the authorized government of the United States. It is
almost unthinkable that such a person would restore power to the government and
hold free elections. More likely, he would then proclaim himself Savior or King
or Dear Leader, and if you think he would return your rights to you, you must
also believe in the tooth fairy.
A greater possibility
is that the authorities would quash all the rebellions. For your safety’s sake,
they would declare martial law, make the Patriot Act even stricter, and in
effect revoke the Bill of Rights. People would buy it, because security is
valued more than freedom. After enough gun battles, people would be eager to
exchange their freedom of speech for safety from bullets. They would also be
very likely to admire a strong man who could hold everything together, no matter
what the cost.
We should also
consider the possibility of the united states disuniting, making a patchwork of
feuding states from sea to shining sea. Some might offer a modicum of freedom,
but by their nature they would be permanently at war with each other, so
freedom would be about as common as the California condor.
Another
extremely probable outcome is that the groups would not stay focused. To
protect their freedoms, they could easily branch into collecting “donations”
from unarmed citizens to buy ammunition. It is practically impossible to
imagine that these groups will merge racially. Some White groups would go wipe
out those nasty Latino gangs, which would unify all the Hispanics to protect
themselves against marauders. Some would start lynching Blacks or just shooting
them on sight, and others would go after illegal immigrants, and then
immigrants. Moslems would hardly remain untouched, so they would band together
for protection. I find it very easy to see how people firing guns to “protect
their freedom” would start ethnic cleansing. The Amerindians survived the last
genocide; would they survive the next?
The
most likely possibility would be that the government of the United States would
be embroiled in continuous fighting with militants, until such time as both
sides had killed each other to a stalemate, at which time Beijing would call in
the money owed them. They might even step in earlier to protect Chinese
citizens and Chinese interests in the US. By this time, the US would be in
shambles and unable to provide basic public services, much less pay the
astronomical debt we already owe the People’s Republic of China. If the US
failed to pay, the Chinese would have a good enough excuse to move in and take
over, and as Americans would have proven themselves unable to govern themselves
responsibly, they would do the task for you. If you kept your noses clean, they
might let Facebook keep running.
Some Americans
quote Chairman Mao: “Power comes out of gun barrels”(槍管出政權)；if I remember correctly the quote was
popularized in the US by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale of the Black Panthers.
Now, if you want
to learn how to govern a country from a man who killed tens of millions of his
own citizens, you might want to study your model a bit more carefully. First,
that means exactly what it says: Power comes out of gun barrels, certainly not
freedom. Second, Mao may have said that, but he knew that if that were true, he
would never have been able to wrest power from the Nationalist Army, which was
much better armed. Rather, his actions were guided by a concept which is
actually much more common and better known in greater China: “I’d rather fight
with my wits than with my power:寧鬥智、不鬥力,” said by Liu
Bang, one of the very few men in Chinese history who fought his way from the
lowest levels of society to found a dynasty (the Han, 2nd Century
BCE to 2nd Century CE). Liu and Mao and practically everyone else won
their power through manipulation, not fighting toe to toe.
And no matter
what, what really comes out of gun barrels is bullets.
So just
as I support people’s rights to have cars once they have proven themselves
capable of driving them safely and responsibly, I support people’s rights to
have guns once they have proven themselves capable of using them safely and
responsibly. But the idea that guns can protect freedom simply does not bear
scrutiny.
.jpg)
