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.