>This ties directly back to whether the state should be given an unfettered
>monopoly on the use of force. Any arms control measure that would prohibit
>civilian possession but allow police possession of the same item, causes
>imbalance that is detrimental to a free state. I would include PR-24 batons
>in that, I'm sure David Silva out in Sacramento would agree if he could.
The very definition of the state in modern times is its monopoly on the use of force. A state which cannot achieve such a monopoly is pretty much a failed state.
Not sure how to deal with anyone who doesn't accept that. Perhaps you believe that individuals should have the right to possess nuclear weapons as well?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas