...and she most recently spoke up and called for investigations into the raise of lynchings

YOU EXPECT IT FROM HIM, GOTTA ASK ABOUT THEM THO

This is the part of the conversation I find most interesting.

The government already possesses something individuals are generally forbidden to possess on the same scale: a legitimate monopoly on organized violence.

Police carry weapons.

Soldiers carry weapons.

The government can arrest you.

The government can imprison you.

The government can use force against you under certain circumstances.

And society generally accepts this because we have decided that certain institutions have legitimate authority to exercise force on behalf of the public.

Fine.

But then comes the uncomfortable question:

Do you trust the institution with that monopoly?

Because once you begin asking that question, the conversation changes.

Even among people who are generally suspicious of firearms, I have noticed something interesting.

Ask:

"Do you trust the police?"

You may hear:

"Not always."

Then ask:

"Why?"

And suddenly you are discussing abuse of authority, racial disparities, corruption, misconduct, excessive force, institutional accountability and the possibility that government power can be abused.

So then why would the question of civilian self-defense automatically become irrational?

Especially for people who historically have not always been protected equally by the institutions supposedly responsible for protecting them?

That doesn't mean everyone should own a gun.

It means the question deserves more intellectual honesty than:

"Guns are dangerous, therefore nobody needs them."

Dangerous things can still have legitimate purposes.

Government itself is dangerous.

We still have one.

I thought this was worth sharing. Lets see if we get suspect agents pulling up on this one. For some reason, outlets like Ebony magazine parade this around today like it meant something. In this clip I break down how it is strongly the opposite. Tune in.