zlacker

What are you hinting at? A second amendment thing? Because that really has nothing to do with the monopoly on use of violence. You can be violent without a gun. Who gets to be violent in a legal manner is an orthogonal issue.

And how is it ironic? When has the second amendment ever done anything for victims of police brutality? How often has widespread gun ownership been used as an excuse for excessive police force?

>>morsch+(OP)
The second amendment has everything to do with the question of whether the police (or any other state-sanctioned agency) is entitled to a monopoly on the use of force.

But like I said, I don't understand any of this. Maybe others can offer some insight.

>>Camper+Z
I disagree, for the reasons stated. But I'm not a constitutional expert, less so for a country that is not my own. That said, you haven't answered my questions.

>>Camper+Z
You can hold a gun. You can't, and shouldn't, shoot police with it.

Even Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground cannot help you if you are being attacked or harassed by the police.

I'm anti-gun, but as I understand it, the second amendment only "helps" against state actors if the population as a whole is willing to overthrow the current government. At that point what "is legal" changes, like when George Washington's troops took America from the UK and wrote the constitution.

However, from a legal standpoint (i.e. based on the current government), the police has a "monopoly on lawful use of force".

>>yazadd+5p
Even Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground cannot help you if you are being attacked or harassed by the police.

Sounds like that might be changing for the better, given what transpired in the Breonna Taylor incident. I understand they just dropped the charges against her boyfriend, who shot at the police when they broke in.