Over at the LA Times, George Skelton has written an op-ed titled, Dorner case shows folly of arming oneself to combat government, in which he argues how the Dorner outcome demonstrates the futility of armed resistance to the government. Unfortunately, he does nothing more than demonstrate a lack of coherent reasoning and understanding of the issue at hand.
To begin with, what exactly is his understanding of what the "government" is? He states,
The nutty notion that a citizen can be heavily enough armed to fight off the government went up in smoke near Big Bear Lake.
Huh? And all this time I thought, to reference Abe Lincoln, that our government was of the people, by the people, and for the people. Silly me. They, are us. Regardless, what's up with the claim that 2nd Amendment advocates believe that it means that "a citizen" is pitted against "the government"? Weren't the Bill of Rights expressely written to delineate how the citizens (note: plural) are protected from the government? Oh, and in the case of the Bill of Rights, I do believe "the government" refers to those duly elected representatives of the people. Seems that at least some of the founding fathers were aware of the intoxicating aspects of power (even when representatives are duly elected), and the need to restrain abuse of said power, via the Constitution.
Yet the notion that an armed citizenry would engage in self-defense against a tyrannical government is, evidently, patently absurd to Skelton. He states,
And there are many [e-mails he's received] like Bryan, who asked: "What if the German Jews had been well armed" against Hitler?
My answer: They would have been slaughtered by the Nazi Panzer divisions.
Maybe Skelton isn't aware of this, but the Nazis slaughtered 6,000,000 Jews anyway. Maybe he also is unaware that in the late 1930s the Nazis prevented Jews from owning firearms. Is it really that difficult to figure this out? If you were a Jew in Europe in the 1930s, and given the choice, would you have rather been unarmed or well armed? Would you have rather silently watched as you and your family were hauled off to a ghetto, and then exterminated in a concentration camp, or would you have wanted the chance and dignity to at least fight for what you could? Is Skelton so immune to the notion of self and family defense that he can't see this?
Again, he states,
The French and Poles were well armed. How'd that work out?
Sigh. Is he not aware of the French and Polish Resistance movements? Does he honestly think that their resistance was not, at the very least, a thorn in the side of the Nazi presence in France and Poland? Would he rather their movements have had no firearms whatsoever?
What is scary, though, is how Skelton seems to imply that we, as citizens of the United States, are nothing more than subjects of the government (and whatever police force said government employs). In his world we must bow down and acquiesce to whatever the government says or does simply for the fact that we would surely lose were we to get into a real shoot-em-up battle with said government. This, of course, is because we are outgunned due to the fact that, as he states, the 2nd Amendment has been violated with our rights currently being infringed.
Dorner could have read up on Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge. Or the Branch Davidians near Waco.
Yes, look it up. Randy Weaver's wife Sara was shot and killed by a government sniper as she was doing the dastardly deed of holding her 10 month-old son. And we are all aware (or should be aware) of the deadly and bungled fiasco in Waco, as perpetrated by Bill Clinton's AG Janet Reno. Is this the type of government that Skelton wishes us to simply acquiesce to?
And while Skelton may argue that an armed citizenry is useless against the full force of the government, because of what happened to one armed crazy by the name of Christopher Dorner, he continues to miss the point. Yes, Dorner lost - that was inevitable. Yet look at what he - one person - was able to do or cause before his death: four murders, two of which were on civilians, other individuals wounded by either him or local law enforcement (including one 71 year-old lady), two innocent person's vehicles wrongly shot up by local law enforcement, one innocent person's house burned to the ground by local law enforcement(intentionally, it is claimed), as well as the allocation of extensive resources in and around southern California dedicated solely to his apprehension.
All this because of one crazed individual. And yet, this travesty is a prime example of the right and need for law abiding citizens to own firearms in the United States. Why? Because firearms are already owned by some 100,000,000 people in the U.S. That number, when correlated with the impact just one armed law breaking individual can have, sheds light on the true nature of law abiding firearm owning citizens - their concern for safety, self defense, and committment to following the rule of law.
A government truly of, by, and for the people has nothing to fear from its armed citizens. Nothing to fear at all.