The People's Right to Bear Arms

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 07:30 PM 4/25/99 +0100, Jim heartfield wrote:
>I see things differently. The state's monopoly of violence is an
>_ideological_ constraint over the mass of ordinary people, much more
>than it is a physical constraint. It represents an acceptance that the
>state acts in the interests of the community, while the community itself
>is dangerous. To give power to the state, you must have a
>correspondingly low opinion of your fellow human beings. If you believe
>all the crime panics then it is natural enough to want to be defended
>against your neighbours, by the police. But the real danger comes from
>the police, not your neighbours.
>
>Breaking the state's monopoly on violence is part and parcel of the
>ideological struggle to free the masses from the domination of the
>ruling ideas.

Jim, I agree with your premise (real danger coming from the police), but
not with the conclusion (armed citizens as antidote to state monopoly).  In
reality, "armed citizens" are the major justification (at least in this
country) for the rather lax rules governing police use of fire arms, and
the overall military style of policing (which resembles more pacification
campaigns than upholding the rule of law).

The dangers of the armed and militarised police are far greater than the
danger of armed outlaws.  Moreover, they outweigh even the most optimistic
benefits of armed citizenry.  

As I repeatedly said before, I have no particular feelings toward guns and
gun legislation, and I think that both gun legislation of any sort (ban or
permission) and gun ownership itself are of marginal significance for the
social problems faced by the USers.  However, or perhaps because of that -
if the right to bear arms is the price to be paid for disarming and
demilitarisng the police - I think that such a price is well worth to pay.

Wojtek