>>724927260
Well, I wonder if we differ on how we're taking the word "monopoly." My justification for not wanting that is:
(in theory)
A government monopoly on violence NECESSARILY means violating my right to bear arms.
(in practicality)
A government monopoly on violence enables oppression.

The original comment that sparked all this mentioned a second practical concern: that police are inept at protecting citizens. But there are people who would disagree with that, and anyways it's just an EFFECT of violating the theoretical right to bear arms.