Is Red Dawn Really Just Ridiculous? If Not, Who Would Citizen Disarmament Help?

When Red Dawn was released in 1984, film critics seemed like they were trying to outdo each other to convince the movie-going public that the film was not only bad, but also ludicrously improbable. 

“As it stands, the film is simply too ridiculous for words,” wrote one. “[I]f nothing else, Red Dawn plays like a Reaganite masturbatory fantasy,” sneered another. 

For some reason, many “progressive” male movie reviewers can’t seem to just talk about a movie without imposing sexual fantasies of their own (one Red Dawn review I looked at actually had a sub-section titled “Homoerotica”). Without getting too deep into psychoanalysis, I liked the movie for what it was and know plenty of others who did as well. And while we don’t pretend it’s the greatest cinematic masterpiece ever produced, it’s managed to retain a lasting place in the public consciousness and garner enough interest to produce a 2012 remake. 

“Red Dawn is a sloppy, stupid, jingoistic mess of a film,” a reviewer of the reboot charged. “Delusional right-wing porn,” assessed another reviewer who nonetheless added “You can recognize that this is a perfectly ridiculous movie while still having fun.” 

Mockery with Motive

“Ridiculous” seems to be a ubiquitous word for reviewers of both the original and the remake, and it’s fair to wonder what their opinions would be on the Founding intent for the Second Amendment as well as what they really know about geopolitics and non-state actor warfare.  If, as seems likely, we’re dealing with snotty, anti-gun metrosexuals who consider themselves smarter and more sophisticated than flyover “rubes,” chances are we’re dealing with writers versed in Hillary mentor Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” specifically the fifth rule:

“Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Is the premise of Red Dawn, that the U.S. could be invaded by foreign hostiles and that an armed citizenry would be useless at resisting truly ridiculous, or are our more urbane social commentators whistling past the graveyard of history? Unsurprisingly, those laughing the loudest have failed to make their case, and some questions are in order.

Is the United States invulnerable from foreign attack?  Will it forever be so? And would upwards of 100 million armed Americans embedded throughout the Republic make it more or less difficult for invaders to advance through, conquer and occupy territory?

---

If only, say, three percent of those gun owners felt motivated enough to take to the field, they’d outnumber the entire People’s Liberation Army which currently tops two million active duty personnel, most of them being non-combatants.  

A Militia of the Whole People?

OK, but I’m getting ahead of myself. We have a military, one we’re spending over $718 Billion on in FY 2020. If nothing else that’s proof that yes, the threat of foreign invasion is not just the stuff of “delusional right-wing porn.” The question then becomes would the “unorganized militia” of U.S. Code, which “consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia,” come into play?

We have no current provision for that outside of the Constitution, and who in government follows that old thing these days? True, Congress has the delegated power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to … repel Invasions [and] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” And “The President shall be Commander in Chief … of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” But face it; they’re all too busy cooking up “red flag laws” and banning “bump stocks” to worry about “the security of a free State.”

Besides, as California Democratic Rep. and self-styled presidential contender Eric Swalwell (a silly creature of no career “achievement” that has not taken place at the public trough) is quick to remind us, the government has nukes. Like Star Trek’s Borg, he would have us believe resistance is futile.

In the Red Dawn scenario, the Wolverines are pretty much on their own in their AO, with remaining U.S. military occupied elsewhere. Assuming for the sake of this exercise in speculation we’re not talking total annihilation but conquest, the rule that a battle isn’t won until a man with a rifle occupies the field would still be in effect even if that man were an “insurgent” and regulars were not part of the equation.

That could be all that’s left.

A House Divided

If things got bad enough, political “leaders” would be looking for ways to salvage what they could, save their own skins and even position themselves within a new order, and their ability to order cessation of “hostilities” could be an attractive bargaining chip. Does anyone really think Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wouldn’t fit right in as provisional mandarins?

As for the military, they are subordinate to civilian leadership. Controlled at the top by what the late Col. David Hackworth called “the perfumed princes,” it’s difficult to imagine the majority of them refusing a call from President Kamala Harris ordering a cease fire. That so many high-ranking “insider” retirees have joined with Gabby Giffords’ Second Amendment-shredding Veterans Coalition for Common Sense tells us much about what to expect from them.

One thing’s for sure: They don’t want you and me having “weapons of war” now, and there are no signs that would change. And neither does Kamala, who pledges to grab ‘em by executive order if elected.

We also can’t forget populations that would vote for damn socialist Democrats in the first place. As military theorist and Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz taught, gaining public opinion is one of the three main objects of warfare. Who thinks urban Democrats and foreign nationals, especially untold millions of illegal aliens, are up for the same sacrifices and casualties Londoners suffered during Germany’s V-1 and V-2 attacks? As for the “legal” ones, most are here for the economic opportunity. Even new “citizens” are free to maintain dual nationalities (and loyalties). Add to that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a change in policy regarding the oath taken by naturalization candidates: They arel no longer required “to declare that they will ‘bear arms on behalf of the United States’.”

The Enemy Within and Without

It’s not that difficult to imagine domestic enemies within the population and the government, that is, traitors, “colluding” with foreign enemies. It’s also not hard to imagine some of these hostiles within government pushing for citizen disarmament to defang Americans who will bear arms, preemptively now, and also after the fun starts. Want three hots and a cot in a “safe zone” FEMA camp? No guns allowed. Molon Labe that with your starving kids.

No one is pretending that hostile foreign countries don’t have plenty of reasons not to want to start World War III, but there were plenty of good ones not to start I and II as well, and they did. It would be in their interests to not have to deal with armed resistance, especially when and where they least expect it.

We could go through all kinds of speculation on how they’d get here – the parachute troop drop that started Red Dawn was just one option for one area. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but the whole West Coast where beachheads would need to be established is gun-grabber territory, with California especially doing what it can to eviscerate as much of the gun culture as it can get away with. Likewise, much of the Northeast is hostile to an armed citizenry, Florida is becoming increasingly so, and even Texas looks like it’s not that far from going “blue.” And anybody see a wall yet?

Implausible? Ridiculous? I thought we’d already recognized earlier that invasion is a possibility, and it’s those who deny that who are ignoring all of human history and relying on some kind of magical thinking that says “it” can never happen here.” 

We know that likely foreign enemies are hostile to armed citizenries based on how they treat their own people, and we know they don’t care much for armed Americans either. Communist China actually condemned U.S. gun ownership as a “human rights violation.”

We also know that, Monroe Doctrine notwithstanding, Russia has stepped up its presence in the Western Hemisphere sending two nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela to help prop up the Maduro regime, “revitalized” relations with Cuba and is strengthening ties with Argentina, Brazil and wherever else they can make Latin American inroads. We know that a Russian spy ship and nuclear attack submarines have been spotted off the U.S. coast. We know that in addition to an expanding Russian presence, the U.S. military is concerned about growing Chinese influence in Latin America, including its growing arms sales. We know that China has “a stranglehold on the Panama Canal.”

We know that there are those who have not made a secret of wanting to invade the U.S. through Mexico, and not just with “migrant caravans,” although you do have to wonder about just who is embedding themselves in those. Back in 1985, The Washington Times quoted Nicaraguan Interior Minister Thomas Borge, who advocated:

"We have Nicaragua, soon we will have El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Mexico. One day, tomorrow or five years or fifteen years from now, we're going to take 5 to 10 million Mexicans and they are going into Dallas, into El Paso, into Houston, into New Mexico, into San Diego, and each one will have embedded in his mind the idea of killing ten Americans."

His timing was off, but totalitarians are in it for the long march. And as with all murders, or in this case, genocide, the perpetrators need three things to pull it off: Means, motive and opportunity.

We’ve seen some of the means and the motives should be obvious: Tyrants gonna tyrannize. What’s left is opportunity, and theirs would be a lot better if millions of Americans didn’t have all those guns.

That “rifle behind every blade of grass” quote supposedly pronounced by Japanese Admiral Yamamoto as his reason for not invading the mainland U.S. is probably bogus, but the sentiment is nonetheless true. Here’s one that’s substantiated, from Abraham Lincoln’s Lyceum Address:

“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

A disarmed citizenry would be national suicide. It would invite invasion. It would make the risks of a Red Dawn scenario more likely. Subversives who undermine what the Founders knew to be “necessary to the security of a free State” are quite literally giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies.

It doesn’t have to come to that. Just as arms in private hands discourage individual aggressors, so too does that work on a societal scale.

One more quote, from Thomas Paine this time:

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them...”

If you want to keep the peace, keep and bear arms. Don’t give up your guns. Any other choice would be ridiculous.

 

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. In addition to being a regular featured contributor for Firearms Newsand AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts onTwitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.