Note: This essay is written to explore an idea theoretically. It is not a call to arms.

It’s funny that conservatives in the US have always clung to the Second Amendment to the Constitution as a lifeline against government tyranny. Maybe a liberally inflected approach should be constructed for the left? I own an antique Ruger revolver sitting in storage somewhere. Perhaps it is time to upgrade to a 9 mm pistol? Afterall, if conservatives are free to parade around with firearms as a means of intimidation, why shouldn’t a liberal such as myself.

Rednecks and incels enjoy dressing up in tactical gear with weapons bristling from their portly, scraggly bearded, tattooed torsos, claiming only to be expressing their right to carry guns in a peaceful democratic nation. If they can give a show of force, why couldn’t a liberal militia? A liberal militia would tell the MAGA militias to expect return fire.

The true utility of a firearm is the ability to commit violence accurately from a safe distance. An arrow from the bow of a skilled archer is also capable of this, but at a lower magnitude. Slings and spears can deliver hazardous energy from a distance, but at an even lower magnitude. Body armor and shields were developed to protect the wearer from arrows, spears, axes, clubs, and stones. The lethality of a ball from an early flintlock musket or pistol might be less effective than guns from today, but they still inflicted considerable damage to people. The utility of using gunpowder to propel an object for impact was realized maybe within a century after the invention of gunpowder.

How would MAGA-types respond to a liberal militia? Having known numerous gun totin’ MAGA guys and actually being related to a few, I can say that this would stimulate gales of laughter and howls of derision. So confident are they in their legitimate sense of superiority with weapons that they would automatically reject the notion of a ‘liberal militia’. Many MAGAs are ex-military and have genuine expertise in the military arts. Their abilities are not to be underestimated.

/* Begin Anecdote */

I once had a sales assistant who was ex-army. His hobby was breeding green tree pythons and always kept a plastic shoe box with snake hatchlings in his office desk for show & tell. He would get in these moods where he would ‘joke’ that he could kill me before I even knew it was possible through stealth and excellent marksmanship. All I could say was “for your sake, I hope you don’t miss”. It was inconceivable to him that I, a non-military dude, could be a threat of any kind. Afterall, the US Army had trained him to kill efficiently. He eventually left to manage a Wal-Mart in Oregon.

/* End Anecdote */

A liberal militia. What an idea. It would have to have a secretive cache and be open only to those wiling to hold a concealed weapon permit and agree to training. But instead of hiding deep in the woods up the holler, liberals could limit their activities to the public gun range. I do not believe for a second that a ‘liberal militia’ could out gun a MAGA militia, ever. In fact, the very idea of return fire would stir their juices and make them eager for a fire fight.

But a liberal militia would not initiate a gun battle. There would be a strict policy of no first use. The idea would be that either side would know that bloodletting would happen on both sides. Sort of a mutual assured destruction.

Of greater impact could be the political effect. The presence of two opposing civilian armed forces, both resting on the same 2nd Amendment could have enough of a chilling effect on congress as to cause them to take some sort of legislative action to tamp down hostilities. Or not. The current congress could make hostilities worse.

Let’s say that violence between MAGA and liberal militias happens. it would be interesting to see if the current administration stepped in as a neutral party. My guess today is that favoritism would be shown to the MAGA side.

Why this idea? It has become apparent to me that the current political hostility fulminating in the right wing will not be lessened by expressions of respect by liberals. The Charlie Kirk fiasco has increased magnitude and urgency of right wing hostility, regardless of any empathy from the left. This matter could well take a decade or more of chaos before it quells and settles into some kind of quasi-peaceful equilibrium if left on its own.

The central bad guy in the White House is Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff. The putrid and fulminating stream of urine issuing from the White House seems to be devised by him. This guy is refractory to anything resembling compromise. He sees non-MAGA thinking as evil- his words. Question is, how to bring him down legally.