> On that subject, it's certainly a strange time to argue for government's role as the holder of a monopoly on the tools of violence, isn't it? The human consequences of this misguided philosophy ran well into eight figures in the 20th century alone.
Sounds like you think the argument people are making is that it ought to have the monopoly?
I think the argument is that whoever doesn't have that monopoly, can't call themselves a government… at least not for very long. Reason being, not having a monopoly necessarily requires someone else is doing violence and cannot be stopped by the so-called government, which means the so-called government is weak and at risk of being taken over, perhaps by the people doing the violence, perhaps by a outside "peacekeeping" force.
It's OK for the government to have the best guns, and in fact (as you suggest) that state of affairs is pretty much unavoidable for any government worthy of the name.
It's not OK for the government to have all the guns.
Given that, it's necessary to consider who should have legal access to guns and who should not.
What we call the "No-fly list" is an abhorrently-wrong way to do that.
Sounds like you think the argument people are making is that it ought to have the monopoly?
I think the argument is that whoever doesn't have that monopoly, can't call themselves a government… at least not for very long. Reason being, not having a monopoly necessarily requires someone else is doing violence and cannot be stopped by the so-called government, which means the so-called government is weak and at risk of being taken over, perhaps by the people doing the violence, perhaps by a outside "peacekeeping" force.