To me a constitutional state is a state which has the monopoly on violence, where a criminal has to be brought to justice by the state in the shape of a court and a judge - no matter what.
If a state allows its citizens to take justice into their own hands, for example by sanctioning lynch law (let's call it by name), it has forfeit the right to be called a constitutional state in my eyes.
Single civilians shouldn't be allowed to take justice into their own hands. It is a contradiction to everything I call civilized. And I pity those who think it is the only way to defend themselves, because in that case something obviously has gone completely wrong in their society.
I can think of about six million reasons why what you have just proposed is a bad idea.
13 March 1938: Nazis pass Weapons Act "Waffengesetz", enabling total gun registration and confiscation in Germany. All in the name of "justice" and "domestic peace" and "civil rule".
8 Nov 1938: The government begins disarming the Jews.
11 Nov 1938: This is promulgated:
Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in ?31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and ?9 of the F?hrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:
?1
Jews (?5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
?2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
?3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in ?1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.
?4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of ?1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.
?5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.
?6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick
I think we all know what happened next.
So, what do you think those six million Jews were thinking when they were being rounded up by the Germans? Do you think they were thanking YHWH that they lived in a state with a monopoly on violence? Or do you think they were wishing they'd not supported the Weimar gun restrictions that started this whole mess; and that they'd had a gun to defend themselves from the state agents that came to collect them?
I believe you will find your answer in the Warsaw Ghettos. About 1000 Jews armed with mostly civilian and improvised weapons held off the mighty Wehrmacht and SS for THREE WEEKS.
If you look through recent history, you will find it rife with examples of the state taking the monopoly on violence and then turning on the people it is supposed to serve. At best, the state takes the monopoly on violence and then promptly punishes those it does nothing to save for doing nothing but saving themselves. Or do you believe this was justice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
We don't carry guns to shoot petty thieves; that's not the primary reason. The primary reason we carry guns is to protect ourselves from deadly threats to ourselves and others.
Puzzle for you: If the state has the monopoly on violence in a "civilized country", like I'm sure you consider most European states, why do the police there feel they need to carry fully-automatic submachine guns to protect themselves? After all, won't the state protect them? Won't the threat of a trial and prison keep the police from being harmed? If not, why not? And if the police, who are specially protected by law, and who can't be everywhere at once, feel that *they* need submachineguns to protect themselves from what goes on in the world, why is that any different than the average citizen's position?
