2nd Amendment vs. Democracy
- Thread starter White Wing
- Start date
- Status
B
boofus
Guest
Rwanda was a pure democracy. The overwhelming majority decided to vote to take away every single right of the minority. Including property, life and limb.
Pure Democracy is exactly what the writers of the US Constitution were trying to avoid. Democratic ideals like free religion and press and due process are not a replacement for the 2A, but rather complementary ideas. They work together to ensure the government does not become too intrusive and too powerful.
The 2nd mentions nothing about hunting, or crime prevention. Anyone that claims to be a friend of the 2A because of sports or law enforcement has either little comprehension of the Bill of Rights or is a liar (hint JFK). The primary purpose is to guarantee that the civilian populace hold the political power. Mao Tse-Tung said 'Ultimate political power comes from the barrels of guns'. The 2A is simply the US Framers method for keeping that ultimate power in the hands of the people.
Pure Democracy is exactly what the writers of the US Constitution were trying to avoid. Democratic ideals like free religion and press and due process are not a replacement for the 2A, but rather complementary ideas. They work together to ensure the government does not become too intrusive and too powerful.
The 2nd mentions nothing about hunting, or crime prevention. Anyone that claims to be a friend of the 2A because of sports or law enforcement has either little comprehension of the Bill of Rights or is a liar (hint JFK). The primary purpose is to guarantee that the civilian populace hold the political power. Mao Tse-Tung said 'Ultimate political power comes from the barrels of guns'. The 2A is simply the US Framers method for keeping that ultimate power in the hands of the people.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kinsman
Member
The democratic process, (and particularly our system of strictly limited, separated powers) may be a good way to ensure tyranny never gets a strong foothold, but arms in the hands of the Citizen ensures that if things get way out of hand, the problem can be addressed by use of force, always the last resort.
Redundancy, kinda like systems on an airplane.
Redundancy, kinda like systems on an airplane.
S*** happens. Guns are a way to deal with that time when all your careful planning, your most optimistic hopes, and your welfare dollars go right out the window. There is no way to be absolutely sure you won't be on the bad end of horrible situation with a horrible person. The reality is, guns will always be necessary as the most important part of the whole system, because they are the most immediate and final solution to oncoming violence.
Finally, let me apologize if this was rambling or didn't completely address your arguments. I'm famished, and my brain doesn't work so well when I'm hungry.
The thing is, as long as human beings exist, crime will never be totally prevented. There is no possible combination of freedom and disarmament that would result in safety. Any society with a lifestyle beyond each individual permanently confined to a single box will have violence. Ignoring the argument of the morality of social engineering through welfare programs, intrusive gov't, etc. for a moment, the issue remains that with a human factor involved, no effort of precrime intervention can be 100% effective. As such, the usefulness of firearms as a last resort defense/deterrent will remain.
Firearm production is the result of private industry. Unless your argument is that people should be shifting dollars away from weapon production to social programs of their own free and individual will, then this can't be included in an argument concerning a free people.
The problem at it's root is not exclusively environmental factors, such as poverty or loneliness. Many people are all of the things you mentioned, yet do not victimize others. Parents, role models, and genetics all play a major role. Without a relatively strong moral guide during youth, many are left as impressionable clay, ready to be shaped into whatever nasty, wicked thing is best suited to survive in harsh, dark conditions. Such creatures are not good in a civil society. I've seen rich kids growing up with everything they wanted, let alone needed, who become sadistic, cruel people. I've seen poor kids grow up barely able to have clothing on their backs who remained kind beings. My point is, these people's attitudes and behaviors were not dictated by their income levels and general welfare, but by the guiding hand of good (or conversely, negligent) adults. Government programs cannot force parents to become good role models, both due to the nature of what the gov't of a free people must be, and because there is not truly a single, steadfast model of the perfect parent. Therefore, gov't programs can have only a limited effect. Precrime prevention can only happen at a societal level, and such changes must occur as the result of wide spread work at change on an individual and family level.
Finally, let me apologize if this was rambling or didn't completely address your arguments. I'm famished, and my brain doesn't work so well when I'm hungry.
I am always amused at the naivete of people who assume that all criminals are that way because they grew up in poverty or were exposed to this or that bad thing as a youngster; ending up as shattered human beings with no alternative but to behave badly and thus end up a criminal. Really that attitude makes me laugh. (Wow! two major chuckles in one day from reading the THR).
SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST PLAIN BAD and they are not just people like you and me!
It is really as simple as that. There will always be people who want more than they have even if they have more than they can use. Be it power or wealth there are people that will want more and if they cannot get it in a socially acceptable manner will acquire it in a socially unacceptable manner (assuming they want more bad enough).
A crime free Utopia is the pipe dream of the pink sky and blue bunny crowd. Heck ask 10 people to define Utopia and you'll get 10 different answers. So your Utopia isn't his Utopia and voila - crime.
Preventing crime at the 100% level just ain'ta gonna happen. Not now. Not ever. And if there is crime there needs to be a way to deal with it immediately when it happens to defend the victims of it - be that with a bow, a knife, your bare hands or even - dare I say it - a gun!
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
White Wing...
OK, we're talking politics and criminal behavior, vis a vis the 2nd Amendment, right? The relationship between those two and the RKBA?
Obviously (to me), Checks and Balances my friend, checks and balances.
Substitute "Mobocracy" for democracy... history has shown that there can and will be problems once someone gets a taste of power and decides to hold onto it at any cost. Certainly history has shown that to be true once the peasants are disarmed, no? I equate that to criminal behavior in that the concept of "What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine and there is not a darned thing you can do about because I'm the one in/with power and you are now helpless to do anything about it" becomes the mantra of the well meaning (?) political crowd or the greedy few who don't like working for a living. You know, those few who live off the sweat and daily struggle of others.
The RKBA as written into our B.O.R. was felt necessary because our Founding Fathers wanted to live in a "Free State" and they distrusted any form of government with "Standing Armies", so they added 27 words making ALL the People the watchdog. (Well, actually it took a while, about 150 years, and a whole slew of additional amendments for it to become ALL the people if you include former slave types, women's suffrage, native Americans and equal rights applied to all, including the old)
Even having said all that, our system is still not perfect and never will be... there is no perfect system; too darned many people wanting something for nothing, too many different groups demanding that THEIR'S is the one true voice of reason. It's that social contract thing I don't remember signing into, but I guess I must have at some point, cause I'm sure playing the game by someone else's rules.
As for me changing some would-be criminal's life by "taking the problem at the root"... why should I inflict my beliefs on his life, maybe he likes his life of crime, be he the CEO of Enron or the Crackhead who broke into my office and cleaned me out years ago. That coupled with the fact that there is never a Cop around when some idiot decides to break a law that affects me personally... and I don't know that I want a Cop with me 24/7, they cost money and have better things to do with their lives. Because of our 2nd Amendment right, I have the right and the tools at hand to respond to lethal force should it be used against me or mine.
So now I don't have anything to add other than it's not one thing (2nd Amendment) VS. another (Democracy... or one man, one vote) at odds with each other, I'd say that it is the 2nd Amendment (plus a bunch of others) AND Democracy; BOTH being required to ensure a "Free State". I have to qualify that (as did our founding fathers) by saying both require a moral people who believe in just laws and some semblance of equality for all men in the eyes of the law (even tho' we do know that some Animals are more equal than other Animals... the good Lord gave everyone two legs, some people just run faster than others... true?).
Good questions White Wing, excellant responses class. You all get A's on the assignment.
OK, we're talking politics and criminal behavior, vis a vis the 2nd Amendment, right? The relationship between those two and the RKBA?
Obviously (to me), Checks and Balances my friend, checks and balances.
Substitute "Mobocracy" for democracy... history has shown that there can and will be problems once someone gets a taste of power and decides to hold onto it at any cost. Certainly history has shown that to be true once the peasants are disarmed, no? I equate that to criminal behavior in that the concept of "What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine and there is not a darned thing you can do about because I'm the one in/with power and you are now helpless to do anything about it" becomes the mantra of the well meaning (?) political crowd or the greedy few who don't like working for a living. You know, those few who live off the sweat and daily struggle of others.
The RKBA as written into our B.O.R. was felt necessary because our Founding Fathers wanted to live in a "Free State" and they distrusted any form of government with "Standing Armies", so they added 27 words making ALL the People the watchdog. (Well, actually it took a while, about 150 years, and a whole slew of additional amendments for it to become ALL the people if you include former slave types, women's suffrage, native Americans and equal rights applied to all, including the old)
Even having said all that, our system is still not perfect and never will be... there is no perfect system; too darned many people wanting something for nothing, too many different groups demanding that THEIR'S is the one true voice of reason. It's that social contract thing I don't remember signing into, but I guess I must have at some point, cause I'm sure playing the game by someone else's rules.
As for me changing some would-be criminal's life by "taking the problem at the root"... why should I inflict my beliefs on his life, maybe he likes his life of crime, be he the CEO of Enron or the Crackhead who broke into my office and cleaned me out years ago. That coupled with the fact that there is never a Cop around when some idiot decides to break a law that affects me personally... and I don't know that I want a Cop with me 24/7, they cost money and have better things to do with their lives. Because of our 2nd Amendment right, I have the right and the tools at hand to respond to lethal force should it be used against me or mine.
So now I don't have anything to add other than it's not one thing (2nd Amendment) VS. another (Democracy... or one man, one vote) at odds with each other, I'd say that it is the 2nd Amendment (plus a bunch of others) AND Democracy; BOTH being required to ensure a "Free State". I have to qualify that (as did our founding fathers) by saying both require a moral people who believe in just laws and some semblance of equality for all men in the eyes of the law (even tho' we do know that some Animals are more equal than other Animals... the good Lord gave everyone two legs, some people just run faster than others... true?).
Good questions White Wing, excellant responses class. You all get A's on the assignment.
Tom Bri
Member
We don't know yet if a free and stable society can exist without guns. There hasn't been time to prove this. If you look at the history of countries that are now 'democratic' in the sense we are discussing, that is the people are fairly free and have have many basic human rights respected, few of these countries have been this way more than a couple of generations at most.
The only countries with long histories of freedom are Switzerland, Holland, Britain, and perhaps a few others. New countries with that history are nearly all English speaking ex-colonies, or were forced into democracy after World War Two by the victors.
No country has been both democratic and gunless for more than a few decades so far. Japan, where I now live, is quite strict with gun control and has been since the war. This is not much of a test case though, because the US military prevents any political deviation.
The political evolution of countries like Britain that have moved very far towards total gun control is clearly in the direction of less freedom and human rights. Britain has no freedom of the press or freedom of speech, for example, and basic traditional rights such as the jury trial are now gone. I don't think this is cause and effect, rather all basic rights are being eroded very quickly. Britain is still democratic, so there is at least some chance that a change in elected leaders could return it to its traditional freedoms.
It is a big jump into the unknown to ban guns. It has never worked in the past, unarmed peoples have always been made slaves by either their own elites or outsiders. Can you think of any place and time when this was not true? I don't want to risk it in my own country.
The only countries with long histories of freedom are Switzerland, Holland, Britain, and perhaps a few others. New countries with that history are nearly all English speaking ex-colonies, or were forced into democracy after World War Two by the victors.
No country has been both democratic and gunless for more than a few decades so far. Japan, where I now live, is quite strict with gun control and has been since the war. This is not much of a test case though, because the US military prevents any political deviation.
The political evolution of countries like Britain that have moved very far towards total gun control is clearly in the direction of less freedom and human rights. Britain has no freedom of the press or freedom of speech, for example, and basic traditional rights such as the jury trial are now gone. I don't think this is cause and effect, rather all basic rights are being eroded very quickly. Britain is still democratic, so there is at least some chance that a change in elected leaders could return it to its traditional freedoms.
It is a big jump into the unknown to ban guns. It has never worked in the past, unarmed peoples have always been made slaves by either their own elites or outsiders. Can you think of any place and time when this was not true? I don't want to risk it in my own country.
Several members of our government want to restrict trial by jury, but as far as I am aware we still have it.
And as far as I am aware, we have pretty much a free press / free speech (bar libel laws, incitement to violence/crime, very limited indecency laws, and the "Official Secrets Act". But don't you have similar things as well?)
Stand_Watie
Member
It's a matter of shades of grey on some comparisons between Britain and the US.
Your grand Jury requirement was abolished in (I believe 1954) and unanimous jury verdicts are no longer required for a criminal conviction.
You certainly do have fre-er speech and press than most of the rest of the world, but with your combination of "hate speech" laws, "subjudice" laws, "official secrets act" your government could conceivably impose a lot more restrictions in very short order.
The US doesn't have total freedom of speech or press, either - I'd like to see the FCC abolished, but I don't believe that the restrictions are as substantive as in the UK - Ken Livingstone forced a major London newspaper to change the way they moderate their messageboards by threatening action against them with the "Human rights commission" or something like that (whoever it is that is responsible for enforcing the 'hate speech' laws).
Now, you're allowed to say naughtier words, more frequently and show more sex and nudity on government owned airwaves than is allowed in the United States, I believe.
P.S., it's more than a little disconcerting to an American to read news articles about trials that begin
"We are allowed to report that such and such..."
another edit, it was in 1933 that the UK quit using the grand jury, I see from a web search, abolished in 1948.
Last edited:
atk
Member
*bump*
Um... So... White Wing... Where'd you go?
Um... So... White Wing... Where'd you go?
Tom Bri
Member
Several members of our government want to restrict trial by jury, but as far as I am aware we still have it.
And as far as I am aware, we have pretty much a free press / free speech (bar libel laws, incitement to violence/crime, very limited indecency laws, and the "Official Secrets Act". But don't you have similar things as w...
__________________
Iapetus
As I understand it, trial by jury is still the norm, but is not required any longer for many minor crimes. For major crimes it is still used but as you said, some members in the government advocate eliminating it. It is on pretty weak legs.
As far as free speech, I suppose you are free to spout off to you buds in a pub, but try to say certain things in a book, on TV or in a newspaper and the government will censor you. A minor example, there was a flap a few years ago when the government required a gun magazine, Guns and Ammo I think it was, to stop selling one issue because of the flagrant positioning of a gun on the cover. I don't know how that story came out, but the simple fact that the government wanted to and believed it could censor a magazine's cover says a lot.
And as far as I am aware, we have pretty much a free press / free speech (bar libel laws, incitement to violence/crime, very limited indecency laws, and the "Official Secrets Act". But don't you have similar things as w...
__________________
Iapetus
As I understand it, trial by jury is still the norm, but is not required any longer for many minor crimes. For major crimes it is still used but as you said, some members in the government advocate eliminating it. It is on pretty weak legs.
As far as free speech, I suppose you are free to spout off to you buds in a pub, but try to say certain things in a book, on TV or in a newspaper and the government will censor you. A minor example, there was a flap a few years ago when the government required a gun magazine, Guns and Ammo I think it was, to stop selling one issue because of the flagrant positioning of a gun on the cover. I don't know how that story came out, but the simple fact that the government wanted to and believed it could censor a magazine's cover says a lot.
- Status
