Social media abuzz over Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones (Gun control debate goes awry...)

[Mr Khan]

Kasz216 said:

Mr Khan said:

sc94597 said:

Who are the "current wielders of legitimate force in America"? Well they're the people, or at least they were initially suppose to be.

The state is not an exception of the people and it's subservient to ALL people, at least in a republic this is the case. Force is not acceptable at all, unless as a reactionary step, as per the definiton of the non-aggression axiom. This includes the state, specific groups, etc, etc. If a group initiates force then it is an enemy, and that includes the initiation of force by the state.

This is not what i was disputing. You were saying that if the American people were fighting an armed revolt, it would be for "better" reasons than other peoples have in the past, and that therefore they would be more trustworthy than other peoples in armed rebellion. I'm stating that if Americans are so trustworthy, than the government should be trustworthy, and therefore we shouldn't need weapons to use against the government if we're so righteous and responsible in the first place.

Americans are either responsible wielders of force, or they're not. The alternative is to say *some* Americans would be more responsible users of force than others, which is very slippery ground to tread on.

Isn't tht EXACTLY what you are argueing though?

I'm guessing for example you don't want gun bans to extend to the military.

Where i was going with that was that this largely boils down to the politics of "who do we trust?" He's trying to make the claim that Americans are trustworthy with use of force, but he really means "certain," Americans, which is what i'm trying to draw out here.