SCOTUS STRIKES DOWN Gun Control, 2A WINS, Liberals Are IMPLODING On Twitter Over Gun Rights Victory

Hear hear!

Perhaps there would be less violent government oppression if government didn’t have a monopoly on violence.

@FlyFloatFire: In some places, the Mafia is demanding/exercising (or, let's say, denying the government's) monopoly on violence. Is that better, in your opinion? What about less violence in general, no matter whether it's police or criminals or citizens (lynch-mob)?

@Stephan Kreutzer: The choice between an oppressive mafia and an oppressive government is a false choice. There are other options.

@Ian Smith: Yes! I'm all for it! Name a few?

@Stephan Kreutzer: I’m all for less violence in general. Si vis pacem Para bellum.

@FlyFloatFire: To continue just a little bit on the thread above - say there's a lot of violence because the Mafia doesn't accept the government's authority and monopoly on violence, because the government is corrupt and criminal just as well, or a drug cartel is enforcing their business interest, or there's armed rebels of a people/language group trying to become independent from the state, likely both parties, government and opposition, may spiral into and escalate armed violence. On the other hand, if it's not that, and it's not a war and one is not planning to have a civil war or armed overthrow of the government, consider: there is in fact ways to overthrow a government without using violence. So just for a start, allowing weapons of war or such which are similar or convertible, I can't easily find a good reason for it. Becomes harder for the bad guys to get their weaponry from shady places (which they always can), but makes it harder for regular robbers or amok runners to cause more harm/death, and too puts them at risk of getting detected in trying to obtain materials, if access to these isn't all too easy. Are I'm too naive/simplistic here?

@FlyFloatFire: At the same time, you're absolutely right, government's monopoly on violence is often (if not always?) pretty questionable as well! Unfortunately, it's kind of difficult to de-arm/deescalate :-(

@Stephan Kreutzer: It is important to recognize that certain people are more prone to violence. https://ugetube.com/watch/we-d....on-t-have-a-gun-prob

@Ian Smith: Yes! Obviously. However, would you say some people of some origin, geography, cultural background (education/ideology), economic situation tend to be more violent than others, on average? Certainly there's always some who are psychologically impaired, some where aggression is triggered by substances (alcohol, drugs), then there's some who are bored or have nothing to loose, then there's some who might have to win/gain a lot using violence. But I think in general, if given the choice and on average, people would prefer to have a decent, non-violent life (also that way staying safe themselves and not becoming a victim). So how comes there's increased tendency to violence for some people or regions, and less for others? What's increasing violence or reducing such?

@Ian Smith: Watched the video you linked and commented there. Narrative seems bogus, or let's say it's one narrative that can sound plausible, but doesn't mean it's true/accurate or the only possible one. Especially if comparing to other countries.