F-15s and nukes

What does it take to fight the government?

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. - President Joseph Robinette Biden, June 23, 2021

In a speech from the State Dining Room, on June 23, 2021, President Biden once again repeated many of his typical lies regarding firearms and the Second Amendment. For instance, he made the ridiculous statement that “no one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something.” I don’t know if he thinks it is just funny to repeat such a ludicrous statement, or if he genuinely thinks it will garner support. At this point, the vast majority of Americans are aware that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Any weapon can fire “over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds” - the only question is, how many times does the shooter need to reload? That part of the statement clearly refers to magazine capacity, but the way it is phrased is nonsensical, unless someone is now selling disposable 10-round firearms.

Of course, neither truth nor stupidity will ever stand in Biden’s way:

And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.

I’ve lost count how many times the President has proffered this prevarication, and likewise, I’ve lost count of how many times even the main stream media has fact-checked him on this. The only limits the Second Amendment levies are against the government - the Second Amendment restricts the government from infringing the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms. Notice how generic the founding fathers left the last word of the amendment: arms.

This brings us to the end of the next statement in the president’s remarks: 

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.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/06/23/remarks-by-president-biden-and-attorney-general-garland-on-gun-crime-prevention-strategy/

It is interesting to consider the legitimacy of this statement as well as its potential ramifications. Most will recall that, in 2021, U.S. troops withdrew from Afghanistan ceding control to the Taliban after 20 years of occupation as part of a 14-year war against terrorism (yes, that war began in 2001). The government, despite superior military power, was in effect, beaten. They failed to accomplish the goal of ending the Taliban’s reign in the Middle East. Surprisingly, the Taliban’s guerrilla fighters were armed only with AK-47s and improvised explosive devices (IEDs); apparently, they did not need F-15s and nukes to take on the government. Perhaps if the government had employed those F-15s and nuclear weapons (God forbid!), the Taliban could have been defeated. Instead, the American government left behind billions of dollars of military hardware. Maybe the Taliban was successful because the AK-47 is a larger caliber weapon than an AR-15? Not likely.

Then we have January 6, 2020. Everyone is all too aware of the crowd of people who, on that fateful day, were permitted into the Capitol building by Capitol police. Despite some reports to the contrary the only people who died that day were one unarmed woman who was killed by a Capitol police officer, two men who died of heart attacks, and a woman who died of an accidental overdose. The only people at the Capitol that day who were in possession of firearms were Capitol police. Yet how many now languish in jail under the claim that this was an “insurrection,” that they were attempting to “overthrow the government?” Didn’t they know they could not succeed without F-15s and nukes? But then, if Biden says that is what it takes to stand against the government, why is anyone in prison? Surely the government then realizes that these people could not have been a threat. Is it possible that F-15s and nuclear weapons are not actually necessary to rebel against the government? If the government views an unarmed mob of selfie-takers as a threat to our democracy™, perhaps Biden himself does not believe his own statement.

What about the ramifications of such a message? Is the President prepared to deploy F-15s and nukes against Americans on American soil? Will he wipe out Texas to eliminate all those deplorables clinging to their guns and their Bibles? Of course, there are several examples of how far the government is willing to go, such as Waco and the Bundy standoff. None on record have ever required war planes or ballistic missiles being deployed against citizens on our own land. Those who applaud Biden’s statement clearly have not thought this through. What if the targeted person is your next door neighbor? Do you want F-15s strafing your street or dropping bombs or using air-to-surface missiles on the house two doors down? What about nukes? Some might prefer one aimed at Texas, others perhaps Chicago; but would anyone really support the U.S. government using nuclear weapons within our own borders? Even communist cabals committed to complete control aren’t stupid enough to attempt such asinine atrocities against their own citizens on their own land. 

The fact is, the only reason the president rolls out these tropes is because he doesn’t believe in the Constitution. As far as he and many others are concerned, the Second Amendment should never have been penned. His real goal, as that of any other gun-grabber, is to take away the right to own and to carry arms. His statements on Thanksgiving day, November 24, 2022, leave little room for doubt: “the idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It’s just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value, zero, none. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profits for gun manufacturers.” Apparently, the Second Amendment, to Mr. Biden and others of his ilk, only applied to flintlocks. Is it possible then that the First Amendment’s protection of  freedom of the press only applied to words scrawled on parchment using quill pens and ink wells?

The Second Amendment has never been about constraining individuals. On the contrary, it constrains the government. The right to keep and bear arms was seen, by our founding fathers, as a fundamental, natural right - it is not a privilege granted by government. Therefore, the government has no business infringing those rights in any way. If anything, the Second Amendment was intended for people to own weapons of war equivalent to, or better than, any standing army. Hamilton suggested such in the Federalist #29. Maybe it takes more than AR-15s to fight the government, but the people should not be denied their right to have them in case they have cause to do so.