By J. D. Heyes
Because they are big government statists, at least two Democrats running for their partyâ€™s 2020 presidential nomination have indicated they would support legislation that would potentially require federal authorities to confiscate at least certain classes of firearms.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), the original â€œRussian collusionâ€Â truther, made an asinine statement last fall on Twitter in response to someone who claimed thereâ€™d be a massive fight if Uncle Sam ever got into the gun confiscation business.Â
As noted in a November analysis by Larry Correia atÂ Monster Hunter Nation:
He got into a debate about gun control, suggested a mandatory buybackâ€”which is basically confiscation with a happy face sticker on itâ€”and when someone told him that they would resist, he said resistance was futile because the government has nukes.
Swalwell walked back his tweet later, but his message was clear: All-powerful and well-armed, the U.S. government would quickly dispatch any neâ€™er-do-wells who refused to comply with a gun confiscation edict, the Second Amendment be damned.
Fast-forward to the present. In recent days, Sen. Cory â€œSpartacusâ€ Booker of New JerseyÂ published a gun control planÂ in which he claimed he would â€œfightâ€ the NRA like never before (despite the fact that the NRA has never condoned nor called for gun violence or had one of its members shoot someplace up).
Essentially, what Booker is proposing as a means of rejuvenating his already-flagging campaign is a federal effort to curb your right to keep and bear arms including a ban on certain classes of guns (you guessed it â€” military-looking â€œassaultâ€ rifles) and universal gun registration. Presumably, if he ever got his plan through Congress and signed into law, like Swalwellâ€™s plan it would include an â€˜enforcementâ€™ provision.
And thatâ€™s when the real violence would begin, according to Correiaâ€™s analysis.
â€œFirst, letâ€™s talk about the basic premise that an irregular force primarily armed with rifles would be helpless against a powerful army that has things like drones and attack helicopters,â€ he writes. â€œThis is a deeply ironic argument to make, considering that the most technologically advanced military coalition in history has spent the better part of the last two decades fighting goat herders with AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq.â€
Essentially, Correia notes that despite the infusion of, at one point about 100,000 NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan and tens of thousands in Iraq, â€˜irregularâ€™ â€” another term is â€œrebelâ€ or â€œguerrillaâ€ â€” forces have managed to stick around for years despite the overwhelming technical/military advantage possessed by the United States and Western militaries.
Part of that is due to rules of engagement: We are no longer â€˜permitted,â€™ via international law, to bomb cities and civilian populations into oblivion. But part of this is also because irregular forces fight asymmetrically â€” hit-and-run tactics, ambushes, etc. â€” instead of traditional force-on-force combat.
But overall, these forces are few; perhaps only as many as 15,000-20,000, tops. And yet, they continue to exist, armed only with rifles and light weapons:
Best estimates are that any given time in Iraq weâ€™ve been fighting about 20,000 insurgents at most. Keep that number in mind, because now weâ€™re going to talk about the scope of this hypothetical fight over gun control.
If all bets were off and the U.S. government, under some tyrannical (Democrat) president and Congress, began military and paramilitary operations against non-compliant gun owners, Correia estimatesÂ very conservativelyÂ that there would be at least 650,000 American â€œinsurgentsâ€ and â€œrebelsâ€ for the government to have to deal with. And these would be hard-core, fight-to-the-death constitutionalists who simply would not bend to the governmentâ€™s will.
Keeping in mind that even an authoritarian Democrat is not going to order the U.S. military to level an American city, how would he/she expect to deal with an insurgency/rebellion/guerrilla force this large when we canâ€™t even defeat one that is less than a tenth as big overseas?
Okay, so letâ€™s say Congressman Swalwell gets his wish, and the government says turn them in or else. And even though the government has become tyrannical enough to send SWAT teams door to door and threaten citizens with drones and attack helicopters, rather than half the states saying f**k you, this means Civil War 2, instead weâ€™ll stick to the rosiest of all possible outcomes, and say that most gun owners comply.
In fact, letâ€™s be super kind. Rather than a realistic number, like half or a third of those people getting really, really pissed off and hoisting the black flag, letâ€™s say that 99% of them decide to totally put all their faith into the government, and that the all-powerful entity which just threatened to kill their entire family will never ever turn tyrannical from now on, pinky swear, so what do they have to lose? And a whopping 90% of gun owners go along peacefully.
That means you are only dealing with six and a half MILLION insurgents. The entire active US military is about 1.3 million, with about 800,000 reserve. Which is also assuming that those two Venn diagrams donâ€™t overlap, which is just plain idiotic, but Iâ€™ll get to that too.
Letâ€™s be super generous. Iâ€™m talking absurdly generous, and say that a full 99% of US gun owners say wonâ€™t somebody think of the children and all hold hands and sing kumbaya, so that then you are only dealing with the angriest, listless malcontents who hate progressâ€¦Â These are those crazy, knuckle dragging bastards who you will have to put in the ground.
And there are 650,000 of them.
To put that into perspective, we were fighting 22,000 insurgents in Iraq, a country which would fit comfortably inside Texas with plenty of room to spare. This would be almost 30 times as many fighters, spread across 22 times the area.
And that estimated number is pathetically, laughably low.
The thing about irregular warfare is that its practitioners, while devoid of high-tech military systems, nonetheless adapt to their situations — just like the dirt farmers and Afghan country boys we’ve been fighting now for, oh, 18 years. They use whatever technology is available to them to their advantage, and generally at a place and time ofÂ their choosing.
This is a concept that only Left-wing Democratic arrogance cannot fathom or comprehend.
A version of this story first appeared at NewsTarget.