Super Empowered Crime Fighters
by tdaxp ~ March 18th, 2008
The Supreme Court case on guns in the District of Columbia ties in nicely to recent discussion of Blackwater…
Supreme Court Majority Appears To Back Gun Rights – washingtonpost.com
A majority of the Supreme Court today seemed to clearly indicate that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to possess a firearm and several justices appeared skeptical about whether the District of Columbia’s handgun ban could be considered a reasonable restriction on that right.
Both Blackwater and the 2nd Amendment are instances of distributed privatized security, the American idea that there is no “monopoly of violence” but rather a dangerous world that all are charged to pacify. The colonial militias were originally raised to fight barbarians — then called raiding parties, now thugs and criminals — while Blackwater is a private company aimed at the “new barbarians.”
We deserve an armed free citizenry, both at home and abroad. “Super-Empowered Crime Deterrence” is a vital part of our SysAdmin, both in the Core and in the Gap.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“The colonial militias were originally raised to fight barbarians — then called raiding parties, now thugs and criminals — while Blackwater is a private company aimed at the ‘new barbarians.’”
By drawing such a conclusion, are you therefore refuting Blackwater’s argument that they are not mercenaries?
March 19th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Since they are americans working in america’s interest then by definition they are not mercenaries. I suppose “mercenary” will be redefined – watered down – until it means just vaugely “bad guys”
March 19th, 2008 at 4:19 am
“Since they are americans working in america’s interest then by definition they are not mercenaries.”
Since when did national origin have anything to do with the definition of mercenary? Last time I checked, Blackwater claims that their obligation is towards security alone, but Dan seems to equate them with being on par with colonial militias, which last time I checked such entities could take up an offensive position.
Oh, and keep in mind that I am not personally trying to argue the definition of mercenary, only pointing out that Dan’s post seems to refute Blackwater’s argument that they are not, despite whether that was his actual intention.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Blackwater “does” hire virtually around the globe, most notably Chileans that have served under Pinochet would be one controversial example.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:30 am
According to wikipedia [1]…
Certainly Blackwater isn’t the same thing as militia. But it is similar to them, in this way: both are private providers of security associated with, but not of, the State. Non-state providers of security are part of our British heritage, but very different from the European model of a “monopoly of violence.”