American Gun Rights Activism Finds a New Home: The Far-Left(theirisnyc.com)
theirisnyc.com
American Gun Rights Activism Finds a New Home: The Far-Left
https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism-finds-a-new-home-the-far-left
1 comments
Apparently the dividing line between pro- and anti-gun isn't left versus right, but pro- versus anti- state-monopoly-on-force. If you think it's a good thing for only cops and the military to have guns, you probably think that government (or at least this government) tends to be a pretty good deal. If you think it should be balanced by an armed populace, you probably think that it tends to be an oppressive force. Both perspectives are bipartisan.
As someone who lives in Arizona, I think there's also the question of if you can get armed support from the police if you need it in a hurry which drives gun sales on both sides of the political spectrum here (which I'll grant is probably some part of the monopoly on force concept).
But I agree that the monopoly on force is the uniting argument between the pro-gun left and right in the US.
But I agree that the monopoly on force is the uniting argument between the pro-gun left and right in the US.
There's a kind of catch-22 here, in that the interpretation of the Second Amendment guarantees that the government really doesn't have a monopoly on force -- in practice if not in theory. There is no place on earth where the police can stop an armed burglar in time. Their gun allows them to apply deadly force instantly and (at short range) almost perfectly.
That use of force isn't legitimate, but it makes it difficult for the government to enforce its legitimacy. It's hard to track down the person who committed the crime. If the gun was merely a threat and not an actual homicide, it won't be given the highest priority. Since anybody could have a gun, merely having one is no indicator of criminality. But it does mean that any police encounter has the potential to turn deadly, so they have to treat every member of the public with a distance that easily turns to hostility.
Which is to say, in the US, the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Its monopoly on legitimate force still holds but is more limited.
That use of force isn't legitimate, but it makes it difficult for the government to enforce its legitimacy. It's hard to track down the person who committed the crime. If the gun was merely a threat and not an actual homicide, it won't be given the highest priority. Since anybody could have a gun, merely having one is no indicator of criminality. But it does mean that any police encounter has the potential to turn deadly, so they have to treat every member of the public with a distance that easily turns to hostility.
Which is to say, in the US, the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Its monopoly on legitimate force still holds but is more limited.
> Apparently the dividing line between pro- and anti-gun isn't left versus right, but pro- versus anti- state-monopoly-on-force. If you think it's a good thing for only cops and the military to have guns, you probably think that the government tends to be a pretty good deal. If you think they should be balanced by an armed populace, you probably think that it tends to be an oppressive force.
I'm guessing there's another factor: belief in the stability (and friendliness) of the status quo. If you believe "the cops and the military" will always be on your side (whether through genuine belief or lack of imagination), then I think you'll be more receptive to gun control. If you don't take that as a given, then you'll be less receptive.
Personally, I think the election of Donald Trump should cause Democrats and cultural liberals to question their assumptions about gun control. It's not inconceivable to me that a right-wing authoritarian leader could tip the police and military towards being politicized forces with a little finesse (take an small existing bias, expand it through controversial actions around "the line" to trigger principled resignations, then cement control through purges and ideological recruitment). Add to that the fact that right-wing civilians are better armed and have proven to be receptive to a cult-of-personality. Such a leader could potentially win a civil war without firing a shot.
America was lucky Trump wasn't a "hide your strength and bide your time," kind of leader.
I'm guessing there's another factor: belief in the stability (and friendliness) of the status quo. If you believe "the cops and the military" will always be on your side (whether through genuine belief or lack of imagination), then I think you'll be more receptive to gun control. If you don't take that as a given, then you'll be less receptive.
Personally, I think the election of Donald Trump should cause Democrats and cultural liberals to question their assumptions about gun control. It's not inconceivable to me that a right-wing authoritarian leader could tip the police and military towards being politicized forces with a little finesse (take an small existing bias, expand it through controversial actions around "the line" to trigger principled resignations, then cement control through purges and ideological recruitment). Add to that the fact that right-wing civilians are better armed and have proven to be receptive to a cult-of-personality. Such a leader could potentially win a civil war without firing a shot.
America was lucky Trump wasn't a "hide your strength and bide your time," kind of leader.
>Apparently the dividing line between pro- and anti-gun isn't left versus right, but pro- versus anti- state-monopoly-on-force.
And yet the traditionally pro-gun camp supports the Second Amendment of the US Constitution which, like all laws, is only legitimized by a government's monopoly on force. Also the traditionally pro-gun camp tends to be strongly pro military and pro law enforcement -- in other words, supporting of the apparatus by which the government executes on its monopoly on force.
If they were truly against the government's monopoly on force, they would be anarchists, but they aren't, they're statists by a wide margin.
And yet the traditionally pro-gun camp supports the Second Amendment of the US Constitution which, like all laws, is only legitimized by a government's monopoly on force. Also the traditionally pro-gun camp tends to be strongly pro military and pro law enforcement -- in other words, supporting of the apparatus by which the government executes on its monopoly on force.
If they were truly against the government's monopoly on force, they would be anarchists, but they aren't, they're statists by a wide margin.
You argue that an inconsistency in armament would be more consistent with equal armament. I do not see the logic.
No, I argue that opposing the unjust application of the monopoly on force is not the same as opposing the monopoly itself, both the pro and anti-gun camps believe in the monopoly on force as a principle.
> If they were truly against the government's monopoly on force, they would be anarchists, but they aren't, they're statists by a wide margin.
I’m an Anarcho-Capitalist, and there are a significant number of us in what is seen from the outside as the “Second Amendment” community. I would consider the healthy majority of people in that community as either “conservative” or “moderate libertarian”, but there is a lot more political diversity than you would expect.
I’m an Anarcho-Capitalist, and there are a significant number of us in what is seen from the outside as the “Second Amendment” community. I would consider the healthy majority of people in that community as either “conservative” or “moderate libertarian”, but there is a lot more political diversity than you would expect.