Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Gun Control Gun Control Forum - For topics and discussions about gun laws, gun policies, and gun rights


Thanks Tree54Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 15th, 2017, 10:27 AM   #71
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of commie hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
I am sorry Jimmy, I feel as if I am in a parallel universe at the moment. In the US folks vote for their representatives- correct? Those representatives then exercise the constitutional checks and balances to exercise power. That, I think, is what a constitutional democracy is (??) If I am correct, why do citizens need guns to defend themselves against their lawfully elected government? I am not exactly pleased with the current administration but I will, as they say 'suck it up buttercup' - I don't see any need to start shooting things
The representatives are elected in a state, not nationally.

The US is a constitutional republic, not a democratic democracy. The founders described what you are describing as despotic.
Thanks from webguy4 and Sabcat

Last edited by Jimmyb; May 15th, 2017 at 10:43 AM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 10:33 AM   #72
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,858
I pledge alligence to the flag of the united states of america and for the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all.
Thanks from Jimmyb
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 10:54 AM   #73
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The representatives are elected in a state, not nationally.

The US is a constitutional republic, not a democratic democracy. The founders described what you are describing as despotic.
With respect, I didn't say it was a democratic democracy, I said it is a constitutional democracy. I believe that in this context 'republic' and 'democracy' are, in effect synonymous. Again, your clarification of any misconception on my part would be welcome.

However, if this isn't the case - and clearly you feel it isn't, I would be grateful if you would explain how a 'republic' is somehow desirable, if - as I believe you contend - the citizens need guns to protect themselves from the government.
deGanis is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 10:58 AM   #74
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
With respect, I didn't say it was a democratic democracy, I said it is a constitutional democracy. I believe that in this context 'republic' and 'democracy' are, in effect synonymous. Again, your clarification of any misconception on my part would be welcome.

However, if this isn't the case - and clearly you feel it isn't, I would be grateful if you would explain how a 'republic' is somehow desirable, if - as I believe you contend - the citizens need guns to protect themselves from the government.
Republic and Democracy are not synonyms and closer to antonyms or as some call antipodal.
Thanks from Jimmyb
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 12:56 PM   #75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of commie hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
With respect, I didn't say it was a democratic democracy, I said it is a constitutional democracy. I believe that in this context 'republic' and 'democracy' are, in effect synonymous. Again, your clarification of any misconception on my part would be welcome.

However, if this isn't the case - and clearly you feel it isn't, I would be grateful if you would explain how a 'republic' is somehow desirable, if - as I believe you contend - the citizens need guns to protect themselves from the government.
Obviously I meant a constitutional democracy. A republic and a democracy are not the same. There is nothing in the structure of the U.S. federal government regarding democracy. The only mentions of a democracy by the Founders were of their disdain for democracy.

There is no connection between the type of U.S. government and needing guns. The stated reasons for protecting gun ownership is that it is an unalienable right and the type of government is not relevant to protecting against a tyrannically government.
Thanks from webguy4 and Sabcat
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 01:52 PM   #76
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 86
I do understand how, in purely political theory terms, how a republic and a democracy are different. But I would like - if possible - to move from theory, to 21st century reality. When we say a country is 'democratic', I think we accept that we don't mean it has true Athenian democracy, but rather some form of constitutional democracy. In that sense, I do not see how there is an argument to say the US isn't democratic. If it isn't, then there are some parts of the world who may need an explanation as to why the US has deemed it fitting to implement regime change.

And because something is an 'unalienable right' means it is always a good idea?
Thanks from RNG
deGanis is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 02:13 PM   #77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of commie hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
I do understand how, in purely political theory terms, how a republic and a democracy are different. But I would like - if possible - to move from theory, to 21st century reality. When we say a country is 'democratic', I think we accept that we don't mean it has true Athenian democracy, but rather some form of constitutional democracy. In that sense, I do not see how there is an argument to say the US isn't democratic. If it isn't, then there are some parts of the world who may need an explanation as to why the US has deemed it fitting to implement regime change.

And because something is an 'unalienable right' means it is always a good idea?
The US's govenment model cannot be implemented in other countries because the US model is a compact between states and not a country such as a nation-state.

Unalienable rights are always good ideas.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 02:35 PM   #78
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 86
I didn't say the US implemented its specific - and unique - form of compact; I said it has implemented democracy. Democracy in its accepted modern sense covers a range of forms of government, of which the US is but one. Much as I love the political theory, I would ask to to again consider current, on the ground, reality. The US voter has his or her democratic right to vote for their representatives- if they don't like them they can vote them out. They do not need guns to do this!

And I am afraid I must respectfully disagree - just because someone decides something is unalienable does not make it so. When unalienable rights cause undeniable problems, maybe it's time to rethink?
Thanks from RNG
deGanis is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 03:06 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of commie hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
I didn't say the US implemented its specific - and unique - form of compact; I said it has implemented democracy. Democracy in its accepted modern sense covers a range of forms of government, of which the US is but one. Much as I love the political theory, I would ask to to again consider current, on the ground, reality. The US voter has his or her democratic right to vote for their representatives- if they don't like them they can vote them out. They do not need guns to do this!

And I am afraid I must respectfully disagree - just because someone decides something is unalienable does not make it so. When unalienable rights cause undeniable problems, maybe it's time to rethink?
A voter can vote for their representative. That is not a national vote. That is a state vote. If the US system of government was a democracy, then voters of each state would have vote for each federal Congressmen.

Your continued references to guns is irrelevant to the US form of government and the structure of the US form of government only makes your gun references moot.

You need to restructure the state of nature if you want to rethink unalienable rights.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 03:22 PM   #80
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 86
Please see my point above - the individual can vote for their representatives and can remove them. I trust you agree with that? In what way is that not democratic?

With respect, I am not sure my reference to guns is irrelevant. Another poster said that guns were needed to protect the citizens from the government. That is palpable nonsense - in a democracy, or whatever alternative name you wish to come up with for when there is universal suffrage - there is no need to have guns to protect yourself from government. as this question was started by me and asking how guns keep us safer, I am not sure how it is 'moot.' Your argument seems to be 'that's just the way it is' - forgive me, I don't see that as an argument

How do I need to restructure nature if I want to rethink unalienable rights? Rights are derived by people (men usually) deciding what they are; they don't naturally occur. Just because someone claims they are unalienable doesn't make them so.
Thanks from RNG
deGanis is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Tags
genuine, question



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question for IT TNVolunteer73 Current Events 8 November 1st, 2014 07:44 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.