Peter van Uhm: "Why I Chose The Gun"

[30 cal slut]

duality of man and all that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0

[TXBob]

Interesting find.

However I take issue with his "State has a monopoly" on violence. On the contrary--firearms allow citizens to resist that state monopoly on violence.

It was a good message in that it went to many people who would outright have all soldiers locked up and thrown away.

[LHS]

Interesting find.

However I take issue with his "State has a monopoly" on violence. On the contrary--firearms allow citizens to resist that state monopoly on violence.

It was a good message in that it went to many people who would outright have all soldiers locked up and thrown away.

I understand the notion he's trying to convey regarding 'state monopoly of violence', but he's missing a key component. I agree that an elected government should have the monopoly on organized aggressive violence against other states, i.e. you shouldn't have individual warlords or dictators deciding to unilaterally wage war on neighboring states. That's the difference between, say, the Netherlands and Somalia or Syria. But once you remove the capability of violence from the citizenry at large, you've put them at the mercy of that government should it ever turn away from democratic/constitutional principles. That is the reason to retain the capability of violence in the hands of the citizenry.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I took his comments to be from the macro, not the micro view. In that regard, the state has the a monopoly on violence, not war lords or organized crime. Not a bad message.

I think the more important message is that the military, controlled my elected civilian leadership, is a force for peace. I'm sure there were some that crapped themselves in the crowd when an EBL came out.

[trinydex]

was interesting to find that on ted