[tolgerias]

I can only reply to myself (low score?) but my point was not that self defense is not justifiable in extreme cases (though I made that point. I didn't choose my words wisely). What I mean is that by no means is the citizen expected to engage in vigilante justice or apply force against the state. That leads to lawlessness and was kind of hinted by the parent comment. The state should have the monopoly of force _to apply in a lawful manner and mantain the rule of law_

[lovich]

The state decides what a lawful manner is, thats about as useful a statement as "it's not illegal when the president does it". The states only rules as long as a certain X% of the populace agress with it. The second amendment tries to balance that X so that it doesn't become something like o ly 1% of the populace needs to agree with the government for it to maintain power.

There's arguments to be made as to what percentage of the populace needs to agree for a stable society to be formed. Both extremes of 100% and 0% are obviously bad as you either get no agreement or total dictatorship.

Just saying that you should listen to the government though ignores the majority of the history of governments

[manfredo]

Vigilantism isn't self defense. Even in states with the strongest self defense laws (e.g. stand your ground laws), you can only use force to defend yourself (and I think also your family or immediate companions) when you are threatened. You can't just prowl around shooting suspected drug dealers.