The state should have a monopoly on legitimate violence....

[ReconLdr]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nadl...imate-violence

From the article:

“But let me say, yes,” Nadler added. “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”

[Mr_Gixxer]

I guess they will find out how much of a monopoly the PEOPLE have soon enough.

[Willie D]

The actual statement he's misquoting is something like "The hallmark of stable nation states is a monopoly on the use of force."


That statement is more or less true. You won't find a stable nation with 2 or more competing military factions. It does NOT mean the state has the sole right to exert violence upon its citizens.

[ungawa]

I think it's time. I'm not going to be tricked onto a train and thrown into an oven. And it's getting to the point that the majority of our opposition in US Government is either espousing it or condoning it.

If this crap was happening during the late 1930s the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NAZI) would have been overthrown and Churchill's warnings would have been unnecessary.

No modern people have ever voluntarily faced this type of declared hostility and flagrant violation of law from their government. It's ironic that we are the only people that would ever accept this. When they are running me over with a tank I will be saying, "Maybe we should all call our reps before this gets out of hand."

They have declared war.

[BestDefense=StrongOffense]

“If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane,”


Chilling

[7998]

I think it's time. I'm not going to be tricked onto a train and thrown into an oven. And it's getting to the point that the majority of our opposition in US Government is either espousing it or condoning it.

If this crap was happening during the late 1930s the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NAZI) would have been overthrown and Churchill's warnings would have been unnecessary.

No modern people have ever voluntarily faced this type of declared hostility and flagrant violation of law from their government. It's ironic that we are the only people that would ever accept this. When they are running me over with a tank I will be saying, "Maybe we should all call our reps before this gets out of hand."

They have declared war.

Relax, no one is getting on any trains yet.

[ungawa]

Relax, no one is getting on any trains yet.

You actually completely missed the entire point of my post? LOL, read it again bro

[7998]

Sorry i reread it and still missed it, I'm fighting a nasty cold maybe that's why.

[ShooterInPA1]

If anyone is an expert on high capacity things, it is Nadler the Hut.

[ungawa]

It's probably me with the communication issue.

My point was that the current illegal actions and rhetoric by our government would have caused an overthrow the the Socialist (NAZI) party before there even were trains to take people to ovens. And no country in modern times (other than ours) has experienced a fraction of that from their government without an all-out rebellion, civl war, or revolution.

We are the stupidest people on the face of the planet. Nobody would stand for this. They knew better 70 years ago.

As an addendum,

Relax, no one is getting on any trains yet.

That's not entirely true.

But, even if it were, that's the point at which there is nothing you can do about it. Which was my original point.