In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Demokracy and gun rights; Why they cannot coexist.
gunphreak
Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
Well, here are some interesting things to speculate on. Demokracy is a system of majority rule. This much is common knowledge to us all, on both sides of the fence, left and right. Essentially, Demokracy is nothing more than a non-violent form of mob rule, since basically, a mob attempting to push its values by force on others while being outnumbered will not get their point across. Demonkrats from every angle wish to support a system that will create a world in their vision, here's the kicker, whether you want it or not.
An interesting point also to be made. One armed man can hold sway to a hundred unarmed men. So, when the mob comes for you to try to coerce you into their mode of thought and you start gunning them down, it simply isn't worth pursuing at those costs. This is why majority rule does not rule the day, yet.
Reasons for why a person would support gun kontrol to support demokracy can be listed under the following categories: Racism, sexism, agism and classism.
In racism, the reasons for supporting disarming everyone else is simple. If your side supports disarming everyone, knowing full well their side will not comply, and/or their racial opponents will comply, a system of force can be exerted with ease.
In sexism, disarming everyone with the sole purpose of taking all equalizers out of the social equation creates a new system that subjects the weak to the will of the strong.
The same goes for agism.
In classism, the system creates a list of people who should not own its own weaponry (themselves excluded, of course), creating an exclusionary system more diabolical than the other three, in whichh the elite now have a licensed edge over everyone else.
In the end, one thing is clear. In the 20th century, every gov't sponsored genocide targeted a specific group of people, and was not even remotely random. Any time someone wishes to use any force to disarm another human being, it is never in their best interest, but for demokracy to work will require us all to accept things that are not good for us, just so another's vision can be fulfilled.
F^&k that $#!t!!!
An interesting point also to be made. One armed man can hold sway to a hundred unarmed men. So, when the mob comes for you to try to coerce you into their mode of thought and you start gunning them down, it simply isn't worth pursuing at those costs. This is why majority rule does not rule the day, yet.
Reasons for why a person would support gun kontrol to support demokracy can be listed under the following categories: Racism, sexism, agism and classism.
In racism, the reasons for supporting disarming everyone else is simple. If your side supports disarming everyone, knowing full well their side will not comply, and/or their racial opponents will comply, a system of force can be exerted with ease.
In sexism, disarming everyone with the sole purpose of taking all equalizers out of the social equation creates a new system that subjects the weak to the will of the strong.
The same goes for agism.
In classism, the system creates a list of people who should not own its own weaponry (themselves excluded, of course), creating an exclusionary system more diabolical than the other three, in whichh the elite now have a licensed edge over everyone else.
In the end, one thing is clear. In the 20th century, every gov't sponsored genocide targeted a specific group of people, and was not even remotely random. Any time someone wishes to use any force to disarm another human being, it is never in their best interest, but for demokracy to work will require us all to accept things that are not good for us, just so another's vision can be fulfilled.
F^&k that $#!t!!!
Comments
In a republic I don't believe it could ever happen quite like that, although I am just a guy who has an opinion. I'm no expert or anything.
Why, then, do we keep hearing the phrase used to describe our gov't? It doesn't matter what is written in the US Constitution if everyone else has never read it or understands what that means.
quote: We live in a Republic.
See above. In case either of you are wondering, the purpose of the post was to show you guys the choices ahead in this area. You can't have both. They are contradictions of one another, and neither could survive the paradox.
quote:In a republic I don't believe it could ever happen quite like that, although I am just a guy who has an opinion. I'm no expert or anything.
Depends on the Republic in question. If the people in question want a sozialist republik, then you are looking at a system of gov't that never acknowledged that as one of the rights of the people.
And of course our elected representatives are SUPPOSED to function within the guidelines of the US Constitution. Of course we all know how well that has been working. But at least after one of the heinous school shootings or some such, when anti-gun sentiment is very high, The Brandy Campaign can't call a nationwide vote of citizens regarding gun rights and, because of the temporary anger towards guns, have the citizens vote our gun rights away by just a tiny majority. My understanding is that if we Americans had a democracy instead of a republic, this is what could happen. Once again, I am no expert. I wish the experts would chime in on this.
While not true on a state or city level, on a federal level it appears to me that we have been and continue to function as a republic. Rather than the citizens voting on new laws, government actions, etc. instead the citizens vote on sending their senators and representatives to washington and THEY do the voting for us.
And of course our elected representatives are SUPPOSED to function within the guidelines of the US Constitution. Of course we all know how well that has been working. But at least after one of the heinous school shootings or some such, when anti-gun sentiment is very high, The Brandy Campaign can't call a nationwide vote of citizens regarding gun rights and, because of the temporary anger towards guns, have the citizens vote our gun rights away by just a tiny majority. My understanding is that if we Americans had a democracy instead of a republic, this is what could happen. Once again, I am no expert. I wish the experts would chime in on this.
Fox;
The push is for demokracy, and we both know it. Whether it exists right now, or not, it is encroaching more every time we turn around.
The Republic, as it was written, disallowed any majority to impose on the minority with their will, simply because rights were not negotiable. Well, they are now!!!!
quote:And of course our elected representatives are SUPPOSED to function within the guidelines of the US Constitution. Of course we all know how well that has been working. But at least after one of the heinous school shootings or some such, when anti-gun sentiment is very high, The Brandy Campaign can't call a nationwide vote of citizens regarding gun rights and, because of the temporary anger towards guns, have the citizens vote our gun rights away by just a tiny majority. My understanding is that if we Americans had a democracy instead of a republic, this is what could happen. Once again, I am no expert. I wish the experts would chime in on this.
Another something to consider, here is that your representatives may be elected by majority rule, only to do his will and not the ones he represents, and he would be then promptly voted out, after the damage is done, and with few ways to reverse the course of the damage done. One downfall of a republik that insists that rights are negotiable.
While not true on a state or city level, on a federal level it appears to me that we have been and continue to function as a republic. Rather than the citizens voting on new laws, government actions, etc. instead the citizens vote on sending their senators and representatives to washington and THEY do the voting for us.
With some modifications from the original republic, what you said is mostly true. Originally, Senators were elected by state legislators, not by the people in general. This was meant to keep dual federalism in full tact and act as a check and a balance to keep the government from becoming either too democratic or too government-centric. As long as the Senate represented states' interests and the House represented the peoples' interests, then there would be more division among the two houses of congress and fewer bad laws would pass through both--the theory being that laws that only were a benefit to both the government AND the people would pass. It mostly worked, until the 17th Amendment changed that. Now both houses of Congress work to pass legislation that they think is popular while hiding riders in the bills that would be wildly un-popular if people new they were there. This creates the worst of both worlds, where the government's power expands as people support more entitlement programs for themselves.
quote:And of course our elected representatives are SUPPOSED to function within the guidelines of the US Constitution. Of course we all know how well that has been working. But at least after one of the heinous school shootings or some such, when anti-gun sentiment is very high, The Brandy Campaign can't call a nationwide vote of citizens regarding gun rights and, because of the temporary anger towards guns, have the citizens vote our gun rights away by just a tiny majority. My understanding is that if we Americans had a democracy instead of a republic, this is what could happen. Once again, I am no expert. I wish the experts would chime in on this.
What you said is essentially true. What has kept Congress from voting away those rights entirely is the fact that there is enough money donated to campaigns from the "gun lobby" to keep a certain number in congress from voting away all rights all at once. Instead, they piece-meal the voting away of inalienable rights until people are accustomed to the "new" rights, and then they vote away a bit more. This has been a fairly consistent process in the Congress since at least 1913. In the last 50 years it has really gotten a full head of steam.