3 ms·
I categorically disagree with this. Look at the enormous damage small groups of armed people have imparted on the government even recently. Two delusional guys
by Thriptic 7y ago
I categorically disagree with this. Look at the enormous damage small groups of armed people have imparted on the government even recently. Two delusional guys in Boston shut down the entire city for multiple days and necessitated a state-wide response by blowing up a few pipe bombs, killing a police officer, and going on a car chase. This response cost millions and millions of dollars and resulted in millions of dollars more in lost productivity. The Waco Texas debacle necessitated a huge federal response which we are still feeling the effects of to this day. The Oklahoma City bombing was perpetrated by two guys who didn't even use firearms.
I'm certainly not endorsing any of these actions and I believe the government responses were warranted, but there is a clear history of rebellious armed civilian groups being huge problems for governments.
- dmreedy 7y agoI wonder how much that has to do with those incidents being (relatively) small, isolated shocks to an otherwise mostly stable, mostly "peaceful" system. Some combination of the government not being "used" to dealing with such activity (unintentional inefficiency), and a desire to "keep the gloves on", as it were, and not raise some kind of optically disproportionate response, like bringing in the national guard (intentional inefficiency). I wonder what a government response might look like after a few continuous years of dealing with clearly-organized civil unrest and violence. After it, perhaps, decides that waging direct war on its own citizenry is acceptable for the sake of the State. Or that such agitants have forfeited their right to citizenship.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Thriptic 7y agoThe Arab Spring and resulting aftermath is illustrative of what happens in such a situation.