Joe "Top Gun" Biden is sure fond of talking about fighter aircraft when he's on the subject of gun control.  He did it again at a recent fundraiser in California:

You know, I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15.

That wasn't his first time referencing U.S. military hardware when talking about civilian gun control.  He has talked about fighter aircraft and even nuclear weapons in the past when arguing for the need to "do something" — the "something" being the disarming of law-abiding Americans.  His reference to the use of military force in response to civilian resistance is a recurring theme.

As with much of what Joe says, I was left wondering what point he was trying to make — and not just because of his attempt to sound less coherent than "Cackles" Harris.  Is his fixation on the guns he controls versus the guns we control, an observation, a threat, or a Supreme Court argument?

Regardless, I'm no military expert, but I know that 100 million Americans, with over 300 million firearms, would be considerably more formidable than the lightly armed, poorly trained force of 80,000 men that Biden surrendered to in 2021.  And the Taliban didn't have a single F-16.

Assuming Joe doesn't remember his surrender (after all, it was over two years ago), it's possible that the statement was his attempt at a simple observation.  But it seemed considerably more menacing than that, no?

Biden's F-16 statement sounded a lot like an endorsement of "might makes right" — that he who has the biggest gun gets to make the rules.  Why else would Joe be telling us that he has the biggest guns on the planet?

And what sort of "work against the government" might President "Return to Normalcy" be referring to?  What sort of resistance does he think would warrant an F-16 attack?

• Protesting an election?
• Singing hymns outside an abortion facility?
• Flying a Gadsden flag?
• Promoting an Article V convention to fight government corruption?
• Voting against his party — the party of government?

"Working against the government" could mean a lot of things, most of which, Joe probably doesn't realize, are protected by the Constitution — including our right to bear arms.

Or did Joe Biden provide us with an astute Supreme Court argument?  Thomas Jefferson wrote:

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.

Our founders articulated our right to bear arms as a deterrent to America devolving into tyranny.  It was one of their famous checks and balances.  They understood that an armed citizenry is and empowered citizenry.

But now our own president is telling us that our military can crush "working against the government," and he is willing to give that order.

To summarize, our founders gave us the Second Amendment as a check against government tyranny.  We now find ourselves with a chief executive boasting that the Second Amendment is impotent against the military power he commands, and he's willing to use that military against civilian resistance.  That doesn't sound like an argument that we should give up our rifles.  It sounds more like a good Supreme Court brief that the population needs access to better weapons.

Our founders understood that all governments tend toward tyranny over time.  Noah Webster described how an armed citizenry would set America apart from other experiments in self-governance that have failed.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

Our right to bear arms was included in the Constitution to prevent government officials from behaving like...well, Joe Biden — threatening his own people with the military, should they resist a government that is no longer "of the people, for the people and by the people."

But surely, America could never devolve into tyranny — could it?  We're different, aren't we?  After all, Joe Biden promised a return of dignity and normalcy to the Oval Office.  He assured us that he would faithfully serve all Americans — even the semi-fascist MAGA extremists.  He followed that assurance with a threat that resistance is futile and asserted that he has the military power to impose his will — in the process showing little concern for our rights, which he is sworn to protect.  That is what emerging tyranny looks like.

Joe Biden unwittingly provided a convincing argument that we would be fools to ever allow ourselves to be disarmed.

John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He has written for American Thinker, and American Free News Network.  He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.