Obviously, the gun owner can’t stand against the military, nor can he wreck the state single-handedly, nor does he have to. However, he and a million so of his close friends, could make the country ungovernable. And when he does that, even more will stand with him. In that scenario, I wouldn’t want to be the man bearing the whip. Again, it’s about being confident, and not psychologically helpless that wins the day. It’s a psychological balance of power that is at stake. And, that’s exactly why the state wants to take the guns-they seek compliant sheeple, and emboldened free citizens with fire arms prevent that.
Really? Can’t stand against the military? I’m not sure at all that is an obvious proposition.
In fact, the behavior of the state strongly indicates that it is not. If it were so, then there would be no need for gun confiscation and banning, because the military would easily overwhelm any resistance from mere gun owners, correct?
One can make the same observation vis the relationship between gun owners and the paramilitary jackboots of the various levels of the police state. They claim to be invincible, but they send fifty SWAT thugs to shoot up even a single armed citizen.
The truth is, the state is terrified of mass gun ownership because the state knows that it cannot defeat such a force with any of the repressive tools available to it, from union thugs, to Black Panther goons, to police state jackboots, to the military itself. Especially when a significant segment of all those groups might end up opposing, rather than supporting, statist power grabs.
As for the rest of the post? Yes, the core of the statist strategy for control is, indeed, based on convincing the populace that state power is not a case of the Emperor’s new clothes.