Comment by GMoromisato
6 days ago
I don't see the contradiction. What we mean by a "monopoly on violence" is that the government decides who and under what conditions gets to commit violence. The government orders soldiers to kill enemies. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force under certain conditions. And in the US, citizens are allowed to use deadly force under certain conditions.
The key issue is that government (via courts) is the one that decides whether violence is justified or not.
You're right that a government that no longer represents its people must be replaced. But that's not the case in America. The conflict in America is between two different groups of people with different ideas about what the right thing to do is. So far, these two groups have used democracy to get their way. As long as that continues, there is no problem.
But when people use violence outside government law, just because they don't agree with the decisions of the government, then that's not justice--that's just terrorism.
Its the source of the right. It is not the government that permits citizens to use deadly force in certain conditions. Its an "inalienable right". Something that the government is to ensure it doesn't infringe on, rather than regulate.
It is the right of a person, rather than the government, under the way the US constitution is structured.
I agree with you--the point of 2A is to constrain the government so it doesn't infringe on that inalienable right.
I should have been clearer that I don't mean only the government is allowed to use violence legitimately. Sometimes citizens can use violence legitimately.
But that doesn't mean an individual gets the final word on whether something is self-defense vs. murder. If I kill someone in an argument, I can't just say "it's my inalienable right to wield violence, so buzz off!". I will be put on trial and the justice system will decide whether I'm a murderer or not.
That's what I mean by "monopoly". The government+constitution+laws are the sole deciders on when it is appropriate to use violence, not individuals who think they are dispensing justice. The latter are either vigilantes or terrorists.
> So far, these two groups have used democracy to get their way.
Oh is that what January 6th was?
I meant only that decisions (such as who gets to be president) have been made within the constitutional system. Violence has not changed any outcomes.
But I will concede that some people on Jan 6th were attempting to change a result by violence. I support sending those people to jail.