digitaldiscipline: (f*ck [by fireba11])
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/index.html

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will -- and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader's demand (the same kind of compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation). This April, 2007 article by James Bovard in The American Conservative detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:
The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .



I don't know about all'a y'all, but I feel like a whole lot less of a paranoid asshole for shopping for a firearm all of a sudden.
Date/Time: 2008-09-25 19:22 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] auroara.livejournal.com
Well, I am a single woman. I can do a lot of ass kicking but I can't fight against a bullet with my ass kicking powers and a frying pan! Sometimes, you just need a firearm.
Date/Time: 2008-09-25 20:10 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] smaugchow.livejournal.com
Remember, a handgun protects you from your neighbors, but a rifle protects you from your government. A high powered hunting rifle is fairly inexpensive ($300 or so) and often unregulated (your state may have more or less stupid laws.)

I wish my dad hadn't sold his AR 15 (civilian version of the M-16.) That might come in handy here shortly...
Date/Time: 2008-09-25 20:23 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] razerwolfe.livejournal.com
You should never feel like a paranoid asshole for wanting to purchase a firearm.
Date/Time: 2008-09-25 22:19 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] ruefullyamused.livejournal.com
The sage advice from a friend that informs my shopping list (and damn do I need to get *to* it!):

.45 for a handgun with brutal stopping power...blunt trauma is your friend. After trying several, I far preferred the HK I tried. Damned if I recall a model, though.

Folding-stock shotgun for close quarters crowd control. 12 gauge, a couple of bird shot to soften them up a bit and slugs for the ornery bastards.

Hunting rifle - as noted by [livejournal.com profile] smaugchow :) Distance, accuracy and stopping power. For those more surgical applications ;)

Paranoia, schmaranoia. I'd rather be paranoid and wrong than naive and wrong any day!

Profile

digitaldiscipline: (Default)
digitaldiscipline

September 2019

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718 192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags