"Government should have the monopoly on violence!"
or
"The essence of the state is its legal monopoly of force."
And use this precept to justify the disarmament of citizens here and elsewhere. A fig leaf for their tyranny. I have an issue with that argument. It's wrong. Baloney. Poppycock. Codswallop. Bunk.
The correct phrasing is: "Government should have the monoply on the initiation of violence." Initiation. Gov't declares war. Gov't shoots looters, and execute prisoners. Gov't sends out cops to arrest people when there is a warrant for their arrest and they don't have to take no for an answer.
But self-defense is violent, and all living things exercises the right of self-defense. And self-defense is a legitimate use of violence. If Lefties want to maintain it is not, they should be made to say so. Never accept that argument from your Liberal friends when they tell you you shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
The left has lots of cliched chestnuts like this to violate people's rights. Like using:
"You can't yell fire in a crowded theater"as a justification for prior restraint on one's first amendment freedom of expression rights. Bushwa! What if the theater is actually on fire?
Good points as always Sir! :-)
ReplyDeleteThe "fire in a crowded theatre" really irks me, because
ReplyDelete1. You cannot FALSELY shout fire. If there's a fire then you can.
2. It's a terrible example because the government doesn't gag you or cut out your tongue prior to going to the theatre because you might possibly yell fire. No. You're free to do so, however there are consequences if you do and the 1st Amendment won't protect such an act.
Just like the 2A won't protect you if you walk into a theatre and murder someone in cold blood. Illegal action that harms others = consequences.