Tuesday, March 1, 2011

American advocates of citizen disarmament want us to play the dictator's favorite game: Monopoly (of Force). Here's a tip: Refuse to play.

"Jail now, camp later, and then -- if you behave -- you can take a nice long shower. Whaddya gonna do about it, punk? We gots the 'monopoly of force.'"

Long time readers will recall Josh Horwitz, whose May, 2008 column, "The Game of Monopoly," argued that the federal government, not the people, should retain a "monopoly of force." Writing with alarm in the pre-Heller decision period:

After the (Heller) ruling was successfully appealed to the Supreme Court by the District of Columbia, the National Rifle Association made a similar argument in their brief to the Court, affirming that the "very existence of an armed citizenry will tend to discourage would-be tyrants from attempting to use paid troops to 'pacify' the populace."

Such "insurrectionist" philosophy is common among a small but vocal group of gun rights supporters. Insurrectionists assert that unrestricted access to guns of every kind is an essential element of freedom. Government is seen as a likely enemy, and gun regulation is viewed as a plot to monitor gun ownership and, ultimately, to confiscate all private firearms.

If this insurrectionist logic were to be embraced by the Supreme Court, however, our democracy would be severely degraded. Such an interpretation of the Second Amendment would make even the most modest gun control legislation unconstitutional. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow individuals to stockpile firearms to protect against government "tyranny," then laws like owner licensing or firearm registration (and maybe even the Brady background check) could be found unconstitutional because they allow the government to monitor and regulate gun ownership.


Oh, my! Lions! And tigers! And bears!

He continued:

The concept of a "monopoly on force" might sound foreign or even frightening to Americans that take great pride in our revolutionary beginnings, but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States. In 1919, German political economist and sociologist Max Weber defined the conditions required for a political entity to be termed a "state." Weber said, "A compulsory political association with a continuous organization...will be called a 'state' if and in so far as its administrative staff successfully upholds its claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order."



Josh Horwitz, the El Guapo of Citizen Disarmament and Town Crier for a government monopoly of force. (Tiny head actual size.)

Yes, well . . . David Codrea asks just how Horwitz's monopoly of violence shtick is working out: "Will Libya retain its progressive monopoly of violence?"

That the elder Gaddafi had to open up his arsenals is telling. That means the people—even his supporters—typically don’t have the means to challenge his “monopoly of violence.”

That’s the unchallengeable power imbalance endorsed by leading “gun control” advocates in this country. Besides, they ask, what chance do the people have against a modern military that can deploy troops against them, and that have modern weapons and military aircraft at their disposal?

That point is typically made in tandem with the assertion that civilians should not have access to even semiautomatic firearms, because their only purpose is to kill. And if further punctuation is needed to sway the argument, ridicule positing privately-owned bazookas and nuclear weapons can be added--—and generally is.

Then just call gun owners who believe their right to keep and bear arms is another check and balance against tyranny “extremists” or “hatriots” or—what does Saif call them?— “terrorists.” It’s not like media supportive of that government monopoly of violence, either here or in the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, are going to challenge it.

Speaking of which, what exactly is the difference between a “socialist” and “progressive” again?

After all, they both believe in what they term “human rights” and “social justice” along with that monopoly of violence, meaning they get to decide what’s right and what’s just. Or else.


And Kurt Hofmann has more here on "The toxic 'embrace' of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."

Don't want to lose at the government game of Monopoly when your life, liberty and property is on the line?

Then don't play.

14 comments:

Dennis308 said...

If this insurrectionist logic were to be embraced by the Supreme Court, however, our democracy would be severely degraded. Such an interpretation of the Second Amendment would make even the most modest gun control legislation unconstitutional.

That's because they are,
......UNCONSTITUTIONAL......

Dennis
III
Texas

David Codrea said...

In re Horwitz hero Max Weber, from my Sept. 2010 GUNS Magazine article:

What he doesn't cite is Weber's support for approving Article 48 into the Weimar constitution, establishing "emergency powers" to bypass Reichstag consent, and allowing Adolf Hitler's rise to unchallenged power. Not to mention the attainment of a "monopoly of force," although Weber preferred the term "violence."

Anonymous said...

Messrs Bill Holmes, Gerard Metral and Philip Luty, have re stated what the American colonists (and the Swiss) knew all too well.

If you can make your own, you can govern yourselves.

Son of Sam Adams said...

But...but...I don't understand Monopolies are bad, aren't they? That's why we have antitrust laws, isn't it? Of course, the trust we had in government was busted long ago.

Anonymous said...

More from the say anything, do anything, as long as it helps the KOS, Marxists.

For them, there is no accountability because the truth of who they are and what they want to do is never reported. Only THEIR propaganda makes the news. Only THEIR propaganda makes it to your children in school. Only THEIR philosophy makes it to your video store and pay per view

They smirk at us because they know what they are doing. They know what it will take to stop them, which isn't actually much. So why then, do they smirk?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I'm definitely going to listen to Weimar Republic-era German philosophers.

Anonymous said...

I'm old and sick and tired, mostly of these idiots who have taken over the country and even the streets. They are socialist jerks, one and all, and apparently need to learn the lesson that their way of thinking doesn't work, has never worked and never will. More and more the primary internal response to all of this is simply f**k 'em. All of them. Hopefully it will remain internalized for a long time to come, but it will probably come to a head sooner than we would all prefer.

Sad that it has come to this, again.

-JRM III

Bad Cyborg said...

Following the links below Hoffman's piece I looked at another of his articles titled "Would George Washington want American citizens to acquiesce to oppression?"

Having done some reading in recent days I have come to the conclusion that Washington would, in point of fact, not only WANT but EXPECT American citizens to acquiesce to oppression - at least when HE was one of the oppressors!

Many (including yours truly), looking at the excise tax put on whiskey by Hamilton, would consider that a VERY oppressive action. The very fact that Washington raised a small army to put the rebellion down is a clear indication that he did not consider the actions of the western farmers to be legitimate. Therefor it could easily be argued that Washington considered it improper to resist oppression by the new government.

BTW, exactly where did that shiny new constitution authorize the new government to invoke such a tax?

Bad Cyborg X

Anonymous said...

"Insurrectionists assert that unrestricted access to guns of every kind is an essential element of freedom."

Yep, it is. Guess I'm an "insurrectionist".

"Government is seen as a likely enemy, and gun regulation is viewed as a plot to monitor gun ownership and, ultimately, to confiscate all private firearms."

If that's not true, what exactly is the point of registration? If TJIC had not been required to register his guns, would they have been able to take them? Nope.

"If this insurrectionist logic were to be embraced by the Supreme Court, however, our democracy would be severely degraded. Such an interpretation of the Second Amendment would make even the most modest gun control legislation unconstitutional."

Our democracy? Wait. We're supposed to be a Republic. I want our democracy "degraded" back into a Republic. Even if I went for the straw man, how do armed citizens "degrade" a democracy? How does gun control strengthen a democracy?

And yes, that's right. Even modest gun control is unconstitutional.

Dammit. Now I have to add "insurrectionist" to my business card.

I'd say that the insurrection has already happened, slowly, over time. I'm a counter-revolutionary. Chew on that Horowitz, while you wet your pants over the new rifle I just bought my pre-teen daughter. Wait 'till he sees my son's birthday present...

Get that Horowitz guy a kewpie, Mike.

AP

Anonymous said...

Arctic Pat,
Thank you. I was thinking pretty much the same as I read through that screed, line by line.
You beat me to the punch.

B Woodman
III-per

wv: cowspess Hmmmm . . . I leave this one to you. . .

Reg T said...

Consider the context of the period when the Bill of Rights was written: the thirteen colonies/states of America had just defeated the largest and most modern army of its time. The Constitution and BofR were written to clearly state what our government could and could not do.

The Second Amendment was not about hunting. It wasn't even about self-defense (who in that day and age would have even considered for a moment that someone might need to explain or justify the right of self-defense?) It was about the defense of the People from tyranny, from oppression.

Obviously, logically, the Second was meant to recognize that each and every citizen had the right - and the DUTY (as a well-regulated militiaman) - to be armed with any weapon available to him. Especially any weapon that might be fielded by an opposing army.

Consequently, it is also obvious that all regulation of weapons, of citizen possession, carry or use, by the government is unConstitutional.

leemcgee said...

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservaton not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps I could not surrender if I would." - John Adams, American Revolution conspirator, U.S. President, British Traitor.

Bill O' Rites said...

One of the common arguments by the proponents of disarmament is that small arms are worthless against a tyrannical government because they have far more sophisticated weaponry.
I suggest someone tells the Libyan people that....

cepbepyc said...

OIC...

So we should strip the elected officials off the monopoly of violence and instead let the power shift over to corporate private armies, goons, drug lords, etc.

Everybody give it up for Wild West free market, YEE-HAW!