3 ms·

Here is a fuller expansion of the thinking behind my sentence you quote. The usual construction is: - in order to have a peaceful and ordered society, citizen

Here is a fuller expansion of the thinking behind my sentence you quote. The usual construction is: - in order to have a peaceful and ordered society, citizens renounce the use of violence and interact only by peaceful means - citizens of a city/region/country delegate the use of violence to the government (the "sovereign state") - the government's use of violence is carefully circumscribed by laws and use of governmental laws outside these circumstances is forbidden Which ends up defining government as the agent with the exclusive authority to use violence in a geographic region. And by extension has a monopoly on the use of violence, for the safety and freedom of all concerned. "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence", in this interpretation, would be to say that some or all people have recourse to violence, and in the worst case are not restrained by law or government. It's in this sense that I think that "breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" amounts to distributing access to violence more widely. The consistent application of these ideas would require that citizens not have the right to resist government application of force. In my view, the second amendment is not a carve-out of (i.e. an exception to) this doctrine if it is understood to be applicable to resisting force applied by other citizens, not by government.

skinkestek 2y ago
Edit: just saw this now, and I think I understand what you mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672534 Sorry, English is not my first language :-) ----------- To try to explain were I come from in this discussion: I live in one of the Nordic countries in the suburbs. From what I know two of my immediate neighbors have firearms. I suspect there are a lot more nearby because gun ownership is very common and most people don't talk about it - I only know they have guns because they sometimes go hunting.) Growing up I knew about three houses with complete, working assault rifles and emergency depots of ammo. (This was completely normal until a spectacular robbery were the robbers used stolen assault rifles early in the 2000s.) Switzerland and Austria I understand is the same. All three known as very peaceful countries. From what I read most of the absolute worst crimes against humanity has happened by the government against the citizens, not by citizens against citizens. I am aware of the risks of pervasive weapons ownership but I think of it as an insurance policy against much much worse problems. So I feel quite confident that there is a huge difference between having access to violence and using violence.

skinkestek 2y ago

Edit: just saw this now, and I think I understand what you mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672534 Sorry, English is not my first language :-) ----------- To try to explain were I come from in this discussion: I live in one of the Nordic countries in the suburbs. From what I know two of my immediate neighbors have firearms. I suspect there are a lot more nearby because gun ownership is very common and most people don't talk about it - I only know they have guns because they sometimes go hunting.) Growing up I knew about three houses with complete, working assault rifles and emergency depots of ammo. (This was completely normal until a spectacular robbery were the robbers used stolen assault rifles early in the 2000s.) Switzerland and Austria I understand is the same. All three known as very peaceful countries. From what I read most of the absolute worst crimes against humanity has happened by the government against the citizens, not by citizens against citizens. I am aware of the risks of pervasive weapons ownership but I think of it as an insurance policy against much much worse problems. So I feel quite confident that there is a huge difference between having access to violence and using violence.