Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines “insurrection“:
in·sur·rec·tion | \ ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən
an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Now, compare those words to the powers given to the President by the 1807 Insurrection Act, as modified in 2006:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to–
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that–
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that–
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
And before you bring up Posse Comitatus, that Act specifically states “…except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress…” This means that suppression of domestic insurrection is specifically exempted, as an Act of Congress – the Insurrection Act – allows the use of the military.
Now, I’m not generally in favor of government, at any level, using force unless met first by force. But dip me in shit if the events of the last few days ain’t been different. There is an organized, armed, destructive rebellion going on, against civil authority, funded and supported by unknown parties (as evidence, see pallets of bricks delivered in advance to riot locations) and enormously, wantonly destructive of property both public and private.
If the President won’t authorize the use of soldiers and Marines to quell the burning, rioting and looting, then the only recourse is for private citizens to arm themselves in response, and to use deadly force themselves in defense of the life, limb and property of themselves and their neighbors.
Senator candidate Tom Cotton yesterday tweeted: “If local law enforcement is overwhelmed and needs backup, let’s see how tough these Antifa terrorists are when they’re facing off with the 101st Airborne Division.” That’s one option. Civil war may be the other – and you all know I’m no wild-eyed conspiracy theorist predicting a second civil war over the normal acts of an increasingly-overbearing government. But this is something else; this is the utter breakdown of the rule of law in several major cities, coordinated, funded, organized and supported deliberately by parties unknown.
We have two choices. So, Mr. President – which will you have?