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.