Does the US government have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence?

Nov 2014
340
ph
#1
Based on the courts, does the US government have a monopoly on the use of legitimate force as Max Weber understood it, or does the 2nd Amendment basically mean that the government has no monopoly on the use of legitimate force, since the government has no right to regulate the right to bear arms.
 
Jan 2010
4,365
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#2
US states also have a right to use violence in certain circumstances.

Nothing in the 2d Amendment gives any individual the right to use the weapon. Self defense is not founded in the 2d amendment but in the laws of nature.
 
Likes: Chlodio
Jul 2016
8,718
USA
#3
The 2nd Amendment is for self protection, against all threats, foreign and domestic. A government that becomes so oppressive to its people that force of arms must be used is not a legitimate government.

So either a legitimate government representing the people has a monopoly on violence, or the people do. One or the other, but not both.
 
Jan 2010
4,365
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#4
The 2nd Amendment is for self protection, against all threats, foreign and domestic. A government that becomes so oppressive to its people that force of arms must be used is not a legitimate government.

So either a legitimate government representing the people has a monopoly on violence, or the people do. One or the other, but not both.
1. Have you been in the Armed Service, Aggienation? The goverment has so much fire power that the citizens would have no chance against it. And no matter how oppressive any of us perceives it,the government has the means to put us in the wrong. E.g. Waco, Ruby Ridge.

2. Your second statement is not accurate. By definition, the government has a monopoly on violence.
The problem we have in the US is that the governments are not devoting sufficient resources to protect ing the people. The first article of the Georgia Constitution says that protection of persons and property is the paramount end and aim of government. In my view, Georgia (and almost every other state) is failing to do this. So people believe they have to arm themselves. This has nothing to do with the 2d Amendment and everything to do with ‘we
the people ‘ who fail to demand sufficient police protection and pay the cost. And with politicians who squander money on everything but the paramount end of government.
 
Jul 2016
8,718
USA
#5
1. Have you been in the Armed Service, Aggienation? The goverment has so much fire power that the citizens would have no chance against it. And no matter how oppressive any of us perceives it,the government has the means to put us in the wrong. E.g. Waco, Ruby Ridge.
Yes, served in military, in combat, against insurgents fighting the greatest and most powerful military force the world has ever seen. My experiences make me remember snipers shooting my friends in the head or around their body armor. And lots and lots and lots of home made IEDs.

Take copper plate any garage machine shop can make by the thousands. Place home made explosive behind it. Set up on road in groups of 4,6,8,or 12, with each Explosively Formed Projectile aimed at a slightly different angle to guarantee a hit, hook up infrared garage door opener as trigger mechanism. That simple device will kill an M1 Abrams tank and all types of APC, IFV, or MRAP.

The only people who think the US military easily wins in national insurgency is not in the military and doesn't understand how insurgents fight. It wouldnt be bloodless, but it wouldn't be hard either. Especially because there will not be a safe area in the US. Those plants that build the tanks and aircraft are pretty easy to find. Those power plants that regional power infrastructure are totally reliant on, and must protect, are ridiculously vulnerable to attack by even small arms.

2. Your second statement is not accurate. By definition, the government has a monopoly on violence.
The problem we have in the US is that the governments are not devoting sufficient resources to protect ing the people. The first article of the Georgia Constitution says that protection of persons and property is the paramount end and aim of government. In my view, Georgia (and almost every other state) is failing to do this. So people believe they have to arm themselves. This has nothing to do with the 2d Amendment and everything to do with ‘we
the people ‘ who fail to demand sufficient police protection and pay the cost. And with politicians who squander money on everything but the paramount end of government.
The 2nd Amendment protects the rights to own and possess arms for self protection. Its not just against criminals or invaders, the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the people from their own government oppression. If that oppression becomes too much, it means govt is illegitimate and people have human right to overthrow it.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
8,718
USA
#10
Are you sure that the 2nd Amendment protects you against an occupation that is willing to use Mongol or Roman tactics or counterinsurgency?
No. The 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms. The rest is up to the individual.

Mongol and Roman tactics. LOL. If Genghis Khan or Augustus Caesar tried their mountain of skull crap in the modern age, their lead elements would ride over IEDs on their way into enemy territory, their men would be sniped, ambushed by rapid small arms fire and nail/ball bearing laced IEDs, and they most senior leadership would be blown to pieces with gigantic car bombs while attending meetings.

"God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal "

You know why those massacres were possible back then? Because an untrained peasant had no way of defeating a skilled warrior who had spent their entire life practicing to kill their fellow men with bows, spears, swords, knives, and unarmed. But that was before things called "Force Multipliers" are invented. Want to know what a Force Multiplier is in terms of modern warfare? Go watch Blackhawk Down. Watch what happens to the most highly trained ground assault troops in the history of mankind when they encounter a large number of poorly to untrained militia with modern weaponry. In real life, it ended with American bodies being dragged through the streets. With the aid of plentiful modern weapons, and a very basic understanding of guerrilla warfare, I can get literally train children in a weekend to be able to kill special ops personnel that take years to train to a basic level.

And, if I was an insurgent, I wouldn't just hope the govt forces were stupid enough to attempt mass slaughter to suppress an insurgency, I'd likely go out of my way to try to instigate them to do it. Because once it happens, my recruiting problems are over. I'll have so plentiful resources to vengeful young men and women willing to die as long as they get to take out the enemy doing it. I'll get money from donors, I'll have international support backing me, donating money, giving me weapons, making me look like the good guy. I'll win the Information Operations/Propaganda War overnight. I'll take that, plus access to a whole new arena of weapons and funding, along with the recruits, and the initiative I've taken from the govt forces, and I'll use that as my basis for turning a Phase 1 insurgency into a Phase 2, where I make it absolutely deadly for govt forces to even leave their secure compounds in select areas. At which point the real fun starts.