The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 10-21-2002, 07:29 AM

The presence of guns in the hands of the citizens does change the balance of power.

In order to use the military, first a US government would have to violate Posse Comitatus rules which prevent the use of the military against civilians. If this happens and is not an isolated incident (such as Waco), the shit must really have hit the fan.

Up until that point, the effect of deadly force in the hands of the citizens does act as a check on the amount of power that any particular government agent is willing to use. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

For example, during prohibition 1 (alcohol), there was a significant cultural note of southerners protecting their home-built distillers with shotguns, on the lookout for "revenuers" -- federal agents using the power of taxation to investigate and prosecute people producing alcohol.

Knowing that one's ass might be peppered with buckshot is enough to prevent agents from being willing to do house-to-house searches and such. This in turn changes the political will for different things, and the political ability to do different things. Maybe I need significant armor to do that search, or significant numbers of agents, or light violation of Posse Comitatus (Waco again).

It's not a perfect situation by any means, but IMO it means that there's only about one Waco per decade and not one per state per year.

10-21-2002, 07:29 AM	#74
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The presence of guns in the hands of the citizens does change the balance of power. In order to use the military, first a US government would have to violate Posse Comitatus rules which prevent the use of the military against civilians. If this happens and is not an isolated incident (such as Waco), the shit must really have hit the fan. Up until that point, the effect of deadly force in the hands of the citizens does act as a check on the amount of power that any particular government agent is willing to use. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. For example, during prohibition 1 (alcohol), there was a significant cultural note of southerners protecting their home-built distillers with shotguns, on the lookout for "revenuers" -- federal agents using the power of taxation to investigate and prosecute people producing alcohol. Knowing that one's ass might be peppered with buckshot is enough to prevent agents from being willing to do house-to-house searches and such. This in turn changes the political will for different things, and the political ability to do different things. Maybe I need significant armor to do that search, or significant numbers of agents, or light violation of Posse Comitatus (Waco again). It's not a perfect situation by any means, but IMO it means that there's only about one Waco per decade and not one per state per year.