Mocking the "defense against tyranny" bit

As M.P. notes here in comments on Mohan's post, there is an undercurrent of thought (using the term lightly) that defends absolutist interpretations of the 2nd Amendment by claiming that widespread ownership of guns (sometimes specified as assault weapons) serves as a last line of defense against "tyranny." 

Below the fold, I mock a particular expression of this idea, which showed up at a blog I frequent, Lawyers, Guns, and Money. I also make a few serious points.

Before the mockery, a few points:

• This seems like "nutpicking," a tactic similar to the construction of a strawperson, but using a stupic comment as target, implying there are no stronger arguments. But I honestly have never seen anything stronger than this one, that is, anything that takes the surveillance and firepower of the modern American state into account in positing this "defense against tyranny" idea. 
• In the LGM thread, another wiseacre shows up and we carry on a bit trading quotes from Red Dawn, the "Four Yorkshiremen" skit, and 300 (thereby mocking the tough-guy fantasies of the "defense against tyranny" lot). Sometimes the best thing you can do with stupid ideas is not to engage them seriously, but to mock them. This is hard to do when those stupid ideas are expressed in the wake of the horror of Newtown, because it can seem like you're going for laughs in a time of sorrow. I don't know what to say about that, other than sometimes you need to laugh in order to keep from crying.
• A more serious critique of the "defense against tyranny" line is here at NYT's The Stone; a key point is that gun ownership reflects and exacerbates the fragmentation of society into paranoid atomized households, thereby undercutting the solidarity that would be needed for organized resistance. That's the point I make below about social structure; if you can't trust your neighbors enough not to be armed, how are you going to trust them in resistance to the full power of the American surveillance / security / military state?
• UPDATE, 2 Feb 2013, 7:00 pm CST: 
  • Here is the challenge to the "defense against tyranny" crowd: Please provide a concrete analysis of how exactly the private arms of the American people are going to allow effective resistance to the full might of the American military /security / law enforcement system. Consider geography, social structure, and the ability to communicate effectively given the surveillance capacities of the US government. Be specific and avoid facile analogies to situations like Afghanistan and Iraq, but instead focus on contemporary realities here at home.
  • Ajay at LGM spells out the disanalogies between a putative American resistance and the Iraq / Afghanistan situations: "The US Army would have a much easier time pacifying a domestic insurgency for the following reasons:

1) no language barrier; everyone speaks English
2) civilian law enforcement already exists and is much more efficient and much less corrupt
3) vast majority of the population would support the government rather than the insurgents
4) no cross-border sanctuaries or foreign support for insurgents
5) no established resistance movement – no structure or hierarchy
6) permanently operating factors in their favour: more moderate climate, better roads, better physical infrastructure generally
7) extensive established information infrastructure: census, population records, criminal records, phone data, etc. 
8) predominantly cracker insurgency very unlikely to gain support in urban areas where modern insurgency tactics are most effective 

Backing up point 7: also, the surveillance capacities of the national security apparatus (JP)

[End update]

Now the mockery:

John Protevi says:

December 16, 2012 at 7:45 pm

Ah yes, the informed reasoning of Hugo Torbet, last seen here on the “Responsibility” thread musing about the way

The U.S. blew up a lot of stuff in Viet Nam and Afghanistan, but basically was beaten by peasants with hand-me-down rifles. There are approximately 3M men in the Ohio-Michigan area with hunting licenses, and almost all of them are good shots. Collected together, with sufficient motivation, they are the largest, most effective army in the world — at least in terms of beating back an occupation.

Because they’re Murkins, Hugo thinks, the fact that we don’t have mountainous or jungle terrain in the “Ohio-Michigan area” or that the people there are not related by intricate tribal, extended family, and village ties, or that the wider geopolitical context is not specified, means that they will be “the largest, most effective army in the world — at least in terms of beating back an occupation.” This is truly the kind of guerrilla warfare expert we need to pay close attention to; future Che’s will sleep cradling samizdat versions of Hugo’s Sayings.

• Malaclypse says:

  December 16, 2012 at 7:50 pm

  You think you’re tough for eating beans every day? There’s half a million scarecrows in Denver the Ohio-Michigan area who’d give anything for one mouthful of what you got. They’ve been under siege for about three months. They live on rats and sawdust bread and sometimes… on each other. At night, the pyres for the dead light up the sky. It’s medieval.

  • John Protevi says:

    December 16, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    rats and sawdust bread and sometimes… on each other

    Luxury. Why, when we were in the Ohio-Michigan area we counted ourselves lucky to eat rat. Our dads would eat the rat before we had a chance. And sawdust bread? Ha, we would have to eat the tree itself…

    • Malaclypse says:

      December 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm

      Well, when you grow up… then you’ll know these things, Danny Protevi. Now get up here and piss in the radiator.
  • John Protevi says:
    December 16, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Gorsky: Dogface! I show you how Soviet dies!

    ….

    Mal: *Tell me what’s the difference between us and them!*

    Hugo: Because WE *LIVE* HERE! THIS IS SPARTA THE OHIO-MICHIGAN AREA!

    -----