I read an article - The Game of Monopoly that discussed the nature of a state requiring a monopoly on legitimate violence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-game-of-monopoly_b_99793.html
The point of the article was that DC v Heller poses a threat to this necessary monopoly because any regulation on arms could be deemed unconsitutional. The article suggests that such an arrangement essentially turns the constitution into a suicide pact and that the SCOTUS should rebuke the lower court for offering insurection as a legitimate reason to protect firearm ownership.
Although I think there are logical rebuttals to this position, it was a refreshing departure from the "emotional appeal" approach used by most gun control advocates and I'd like to hear this group's feedback on it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-game-of-monopoly_b_99793.html
The point of the article was that DC v Heller poses a threat to this necessary monopoly because any regulation on arms could be deemed unconsitutional. The article suggests that such an arrangement essentially turns the constitution into a suicide pact and that the SCOTUS should rebuke the lower court for offering insurection as a legitimate reason to protect firearm ownership.
Although I think there are logical rebuttals to this position, it was a refreshing departure from the "emotional appeal" approach used by most gun control advocates and I'd like to hear this group's feedback on it.