White Wing
Member
My long awaited post. Mnrivrat said a post from me would be somewhat
unnecessary as people had explained so much already. It’s true actually; I
already see many valid points. But here I go. I’m looking forward to your
answers. I’m only gonna give two arguments. It’s more than enough for
one post basically as I believe they alone will leave me unable to keep up
with all the answers.
“2nd Amendment vs. Democracyâ€
I’m not emplying the two are in conflict. My point is that democracy and
guns are two solutions to the same problem. A tyrannical government. One
can say democracy has many functions, but the function of democracy boils
down to a system where a tyrannical government is kept away from office.
Same thing with guns. Guns in the hand of the people enable them to
revolt effectively and dispose of the tyranny. My argument is that this task
is already the task of a democracy and that, when it functions correctly, it
might serve as a much more “productive†way of dealing with the problem.
I’ll get back to this later.
It’s no question whether guns stops crime. Well, a general opinion
throughout Europe is that rather than eradicate the problem, guns only
serve to keep the problem at bay. A way of expressing this is that guns
stops crime, but doesn’t prevent it. Instead of producing guns for
the people, more money should be put into preventing crime. Guns is seen
as building dikes to stop the water, rather than to cut down on pollution to
stop the water rising. Preventing crime would be rather to change the lives
of those who would become criminals so they won’t even think about
committing crimes in the first place.
Who commits theft? -Those who have no other means of wealth.
Who commits violence? –Those who need help to control their anger.
Who commits sexual abuse? –The lonely and unstable.
They are all people. Like you and me, and the argument is that the thing to
do is to take the problem at it’s root, rather than, as my example goes,
build the dikes.
The same definition can be applied to the prevention of a tyrannical
government. Improving the democratic system is seen as preventing
pollution. Make the democratic process more open and a less secretive
government. Their agendas would always be known and so the chances of
a party with a corrupted agenda reaching office would be less. Guns is
again just dikes, where the guns can prevent the “water†from flowing
over the land. It’s a situation of when. When they reach office they
can be disposed of. Improve the democratic system and we won’t have to
keep a single gun ready.
Guns is a last stance in our view. When **** happens, they are means to
remove it.
Now, be nice.
unnecessary as people had explained so much already. It’s true actually; I
already see many valid points. But here I go. I’m looking forward to your
answers. I’m only gonna give two arguments. It’s more than enough for
one post basically as I believe they alone will leave me unable to keep up
with all the answers.
“2nd Amendment vs. Democracyâ€
I’m not emplying the two are in conflict. My point is that democracy and
guns are two solutions to the same problem. A tyrannical government. One
can say democracy has many functions, but the function of democracy boils
down to a system where a tyrannical government is kept away from office.
Same thing with guns. Guns in the hand of the people enable them to
revolt effectively and dispose of the tyranny. My argument is that this task
is already the task of a democracy and that, when it functions correctly, it
might serve as a much more “productive†way of dealing with the problem.
I’ll get back to this later.
It’s no question whether guns stops crime. Well, a general opinion
throughout Europe is that rather than eradicate the problem, guns only
serve to keep the problem at bay. A way of expressing this is that guns
stops crime, but doesn’t prevent it. Instead of producing guns for
the people, more money should be put into preventing crime. Guns is seen
as building dikes to stop the water, rather than to cut down on pollution to
stop the water rising. Preventing crime would be rather to change the lives
of those who would become criminals so they won’t even think about
committing crimes in the first place.
Who commits theft? -Those who have no other means of wealth.
Who commits violence? –Those who need help to control their anger.
Who commits sexual abuse? –The lonely and unstable.
They are all people. Like you and me, and the argument is that the thing to
do is to take the problem at it’s root, rather than, as my example goes,
build the dikes.
The same definition can be applied to the prevention of a tyrannical
government. Improving the democratic system is seen as preventing
pollution. Make the democratic process more open and a less secretive
government. Their agendas would always be known and so the chances of
a party with a corrupted agenda reaching office would be less. Guns is
again just dikes, where the guns can prevent the “water†from flowing
over the land. It’s a situation of when. When they reach office they
can be disposed of. Improve the democratic system and we won’t have to
keep a single gun ready.
Guns is a last stance in our view. When **** happens, they are means to
remove it.
Now, be nice.