Our Government Wanted to Use What Weapon Against Us?

(AP Photo/Giannis Papanikos)

In the debate about our 2nd Amendment rights, the left inevitably resorts to the argument that the government is exponentially and laughably more armed than its citizenry, and therefore, we should just realize that our desire for firepower-parity is not important.  Why do we need an AR-15 when the government has nuclear weapons?

Following that logic means that we should fear government because they could just nuke Oklahoma if it got out of line.  Of course, liberals scoff at this with replies like, “The US Government would never use firepower against its own citizens.”  Is that so?  Municipal police departments have what amounts to tanks. In 1985, the Philadelphia Police Department dropped a bomb on a home from a helicopter. The sieges at Waco and Ruby Ridge have shown us that the government not only will use the power they have, but they will use that power even if it means killing unarmed children. “Oh come on, those were cults and anti-government holdouts. What else was the government supposed to do?”

Now, out of California, we know that the answer to the question includes fighter jets.

From the LA Times:

In March of last year, California National Guard members awaited orders from Sacramento headquarters to make preparations for any civil unrest that might arise from the outbreak of the coronavirus.

The members expected directives to ready ground troops to help state and local authorities respond to disturbances triggered by resistance to stay-at-home rules or panic over empty store shelves.

But then came an unusual order: The air branch of the Guard was told to place an F-15C fighter jet on an alert status for a possible domestic mission, according to four Guard sources with direct knowledge of the matter.

Those sources said the order didn’t spell out the mission but, given the aircraft’s limitations, they understood it to mean the plane could be deployed to terrify and disperse protesters by flying low over them at window-rattling speeds, with its afterburners streaming columns of flames. Fighter jets have been used occasionally in that manner in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, they said

Deploying an F-15C, an air-to-air combat jet based at the Guard’s 144th Fighter Wing in Fresno, to frighten demonstrators in this country would have been an inappropriate use of the military against U.S. civilians, the sources said.

Now, of course, you’re going to hear the inevitable counter, “They never intended for the fighter to be armed during its use against American Citizens!  They just meant to intimidate them.”  But what exactly is “intimidation?”

Intimidation is defined as:

1) the act of inducing fear or awe;
2) the act or process of attempting to force or deter an action by inducing fear.
It is literally the threat of the use of force of violence.  The argument isn’t about whether or not the fighter was armed or could have been used against those citizens; rather whether or not a fighter could be armed for that same mission.  The government clearly has shown the interest and desire of implementing such a strategy, so why would we think they would stop there?  What if the citizens didn’t respond to the window-rattling flyovers? Would they further escalate to strafing the offenders or using small-scale ordnance?  For anyone to argue they wouldn’t have used force other than low flyovers, would then have to justify the use of a fighter jet against American Citizens in the first place.
The debate for safety and protection from government violence shouldn’t be about whether or not the government would use that power but rather whether or not it is capable of it.  If the answer to that question is yes, then we must make sure we elect people who will restrain government with the law and procedures, rather than empower it.
It also needs to be noted that this isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue.  The government, according to the LA Times article, wanted the power to use the fighter jet against both anti-lockdown protestors and racial inequality protestors.  We shouldn’t be cheering on the sidelines when government abuses power against one side or the other.  The problem isn’t necessarily our differences, but rather the fact that the government isn’t only capable of using a fighter jet against us, they attempted to.
I am sure they would think twice if they knew we were willing to intimidate in return.