Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[drone]

The police should also be unarmed.

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

[Husar]

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

They are not cool toys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

[HoreTore]

Armed US citizens are not contradicting a state monopoly on violence. They do not have the right outside of the State, it's a right the State has decided to give its citizens. Thus, even in the US the State has a monopoly on violence. For such a monopoly to be broken, there would have to exist forces in US territory outside US state control. Like a huge private army the US army couldn't take on. The best historical example would be the KKK and affiliated groups on the second half of the 1800's. Those groups threathened US stste monopoly of violence, but they were defeated. Thus, the monopoly was upheld.

That discussion, however, is quite different to the current political meaning of the term used in my own and Husar's country. It's been expanded and refined, and when we euroweenies use the term, we refer to its political meaning, not the sociological meaning.

I know I'm rambling. It's late. I may have a better reply tomorrow.

Oh, and Weber was a German who came up with explanations(like the work ethic) which put German people and its morals above everyone else. How unusual for a German academic of his time.

[Husar]

Armed US citizens are not contradicting a state monopoly on violence. They do not have the right outside of the State, it's a right the State has decided to give its citizens. Thus, even in the US the State has a monopoly on violence. For such a monopoly to be broken, there would have to exist forces in US territory outside US state control. Like a huge private army the US army couldn't take on. The best historical example would be the KKK and affiliated groups on the second half of the 1800's. Those groups threathened US stste monopoly of violence, but they were defeated. Thus, the monopoly was upheld.

That discussion, however, is quite different to the current political meaning of the term used in my own and Husar's country. It's been expanded and refined, and when we euroweenies use the term, we refer to its political meaning, not the sociological meaning.

I know I'm rambling. It's late. I may have a better reply tomorrow.

Oh, and Weber was a German who came up with explanations(like the work ethic) which put German people and its morals above everyone else. How unusual for a German academic of his time.

Yes, I read the article and the parts that said the state can allow private people to have weapons. And even the german state allows private people to have weapons. If they have a good reason and can prove it. Wanting to kill the government or the need to shoot a guy who is carrying your TV in the back are not considered good reasons. In a more American way I think it can be interpreted against free gun sales and more background and other checks. The liberals and NRA still won't like it of course since they believe in the virtue and law of lynch mobs, avengers and people who shoot their girlfriend through the bathroom door because they thought there was an intruder sitting on their toilet.

The way we've been taught in school thougj is indeed that the state should not give away too much of the monopole on violence so that it can still effectively maintain order and the rule of law. This is still the case even in the USA because the police adapted to the violence-ability of the citizenry by using tasers the first time a citizen says "no" and sending SWAT teams even to small-time and suspected criminals because they're afraid to die otherwise. If the homeowner is too tired to get that the police is coming instead of gangsters or the police fail to identify (everybody can say "police", even a gangster), there are often armed confrontations where people die.

It may be silly to think the US could have considerably fewer guns in 20 years but even guns don't last forever so as a long-term policy, more restrictions on guns would indeed work. Couple it with an amnesty for people who turn in their guns and you can already take a few away. Also how do pro-gun people think about just these measures being used in Iraq? Were the iraqi citizens deprived of their right to self-defense or was it necessary to prevent violence against the US oppressors? Would you rather have your government hand out weapons to Iraqis and Afghanis so that the upstanding good guys with guns can stop the bad guys with guns?

[ICantSpellDawg]

You guys are a bunch of statists. The state gives us nothing, we allow the state to exist and give it everything that it has. This is a new world and our experiment is working reasonably well. We don't have 2000 years of state tyranny that we are coming out from underneath like in Europe. We came from lawlessness and are building a new type of state, where the government does as little as possible, leaving the majority to the decisions of the individual.

Laws have no moral authority, merely the authority of force. Democracy with local decentralized systems have no moral authority over us as individuals, either. No state has any authority over you in any other way but force. We do well to create restrictions on that force to ensure that it stays on mission and not creep into much of our daily life. We do best to give it just enough oxygen to survive and serve lest it conquer us.

Of course, this requires an informed and responsible electorate

[Husar]

You guys are a bunch of statists. The state gives us nothing, we allow the state to exist and give it everything that it has.

This is no different from Europe. The state here is legitimized by the people, not the other way around. The only advantage you have is that you promote responsible citizenship a bit more, however, I don't see it working much better in practice given that you have a two party system.

[HoreTore]

The State is the People, and the People is the State.

The State isn't a concept seperate from its citizens, rather it is the collective will of the people.

(I am of course only speaking of the modern western democratic state)

[Raz]

So is it only USA that kicks up a fit if their guns get the banhammer?

Living in Australia, I can't really grasp the concept of such freely available guns - what's the point? Can someone fill me in on the details?
TBH I don't actually understand why so many Americans kick and scream with this sort of legislation: something to do with ancient rights for militia, back when standing armies were scifi.

[drone]

They are not cool toys.

You obviously don't have access to a lot of gun porn. Magazines targeted to both LEOs and gun nuts portray them as such.