Political Crossfire Forums

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

They'll have to pry my weapon from my cold dead hands, (which they probably wouldn't think twice about doing)

My weapon is a part of me. Getting rid of her is totally out of the question, and I would never do it, no matter what law was passed.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5080

I don't respect government that doesn't respect me. So, no.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3320 Location: London

So you're not really interested in defending democracy (unless people kind of vote for what you, personally want, which should presumably be allowed).

And you're not interested in giving a population the freedom to decide for themselves how their society should be run (by majority rule), you'd rather tell them - screw what the majority want .. tough luck! People SHOULDN'T have the freedom to choose the laws they live under unless they think the way you do.

And if they pass a law you really don't like, you don't mind becoming a criminal and ignoring it?

Wow, way to go stopping Tyranny, defending 'Freedom' and defending yourselves from 'Criminals'.

Can you pro-gunners please decide what you actually want? And stop going on about 'Freedom' when it's more and more obvious that's the last thing on your minds ...

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15326 Location: Florida

britboy wrote: So you're not really interested in defending democracy (unless people kind of vote for what you, personally want, which should presumably be allowed).

Nope, our government is not a democracy. Democracy is rule of the mob. I don't want that. I want rule by law and principle. Yes, there are some things that we allow the mob to decide, but as I said, I wouldn't obey a referendum that banned freedom of speech or religion either. There are certain core principles involved. (also the U.S. Constitution has NO mention of democracy.)

britboy wrote: And you're not interested in giving a population the freedom to decide for themselves how their society should be run (by majority rule), you'd rather tell them - screw what the majority want .. tough luck! People SHOULDN'T have the freedom to choose the laws they live under unless they think the way you do.

So then you think Muslim countries that, for example, stone women for being raped are correct? After all, democratic rule allowed that.

britboy wrote: And if they pass a law you really don't like, you don't mind becoming a criminal and ignoring it?

Have you heard of the concept of civil disobedience? Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, espoused it. The idea is that if a law is wrong, it should be ignored. For example, in 1960 Alabama, a black person was not allowed to sit in the front of the bus. It was against the law. Was Rosa Parks wrong to become a "criminal" and ignore that law? I don't think so. Unjust laws are not valid.

britboy wrote: Wow, way to go stopping Tyranny, defending 'Freedom' and defending yourselves from 'Criminals'.

Can you pro-gunners please decide what you actually want? And stop going on about 'Freedom' when it's more and more obvious that's the last thing on your minds ...

We want freedom. Being able to restrict the freedom of others is not freedom.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

Korimyr the Rat wrote:
These are the marks of fearful, weak governments, and such governments do not deserve to exist. If they are allowed to exist, they create fearful, weak citizens... and this, too, should not be tolerated.

Fearful, weak citizens?

You can't possibly mean ones that are afraid of guns, think inanimate objects are to blame, want warning labels on everything, get killed by using a toaster in the shower, burn themselves with hot coffee, are so afraid of "terrorism" that they accept the squandering of their rights on behalf of a controlling goverment in return for some false sense of security - those people?!

Why, you just described the United States, 1990 to present!
The bad news, it's only getting worse as this social disease called Liberalism. Accept everyone as they are, blame everyone else for YOUR problems! WOOHOO!

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject:

britboy wrote: So you're not really interested in defending democracy (unless people kind of vote for what you, personally want, which should presumably be allowed).

And you're not interested in giving a population the freedom to decide for themselves how their society should be run (by majority rule), you'd rather tell them - screw what the majority want .. tough luck! People SHOULDN'T have the freedom to choose the laws they live under unless they think the way you do.

Our country was founded on a republic, so democracy is out. And defending said democracy would be defending our Constitution, which allows citizens to own weapons.

airo · Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 2583 Location: Tampa, Florida

Might DOES NOT make right.

Just because the majority feels one way or another does not give them the ability to opress the minority. Saying that's the way things should work is basically advocating the Holocaust and slavery.

airo · Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 2583 Location: Tampa, Florida

britboy wrote: So you're not really interested in defending democracy (unless people kind of vote for what you, personally want, which should presumably be allowed).

And you're not interested in giving a population the freedom to decide for themselves how their society should be run (by majority rule), you'd rather tell them - screw what the majority want .. tough luck! People SHOULDN'T have the freedom to choose the laws they live under unless they think the way you do.

And if they pass a law you really don't like, you don't mind becoming a criminal and ignoring it?

Wow, way to go stopping Tyranny, defending 'Freedom' and defending yourselves from 'Criminals'.

Can you pro-gunners please decide what you actually want? And stop going on about 'Freedom' when it's more and more obvious that's the last thing on your minds ...

True democracy killed Socretes.

Democracy, infused into a system of Natural Rights, is the key. But natural rights are just that. They are not defined by man, and cannot be changed by them. The framers understood this. Unfortunately, many people today don't.

airo · Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 2583 Location: Tampa, Florida

Oh, by the way, Freedom != Democracy.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

I would not abide by such a change. Be it for gun control, loss of freedom of speech, loss of right to assemble or any other natural right. Here is a very simple explaination of way true democracy is bad and has nothiing to do with freedom.

Democracy:
Two wolves and one sheep get to vote on what to eat for dinner.

Freedom:
Two wolves and one sheep get to vote on what to eat for dinner but the sheep has the ability to (firearm, freedom of speech, et al) to influence to outcome of that vote so it is not dinner.

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

britboy wrote: So you're not really interested in defending democracy
Constitution>democracy

I'll be damned if I have to live in a world were the police are allowed weapons and body armour, and the people they "protect" are unable to do the same.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

In your state/city you still have that freedom. Where I'm at, they tell you to call 911 so you can sit on hold while your life is shattered..then when they get around it, the cops show up to treat you like crap and file a report that does nothing.

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject:

Kamel wrote: britboy wrote: So you're not really interested in defending democracy
Constitution>democracy

I'll be damned if I have to live in a world were the police are allowed weapons and body armour, and the people they "protect" are unable to do the same.

Like I've said, protecting said democracy (or republic, moreso) would be protecting our Constitution.

Whitefields · Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject:

britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: No I personally would not support it because it would more than likely be totally against the bill of rights and constitutional law.

As an american I would have to say absolutely ...Hell No. :td:
Remember I said

Quote:
US -- er .. the politicians are all united in saying the constitution will be altered if necessary on the basis of this referendum)

Wouldn't you respect true democracy in action?

I wouldn't support a referndum altering the first amendment, so why would I support one altering the second? They are all rights guarenteed by the constitution which can only be changed by repealing the actual amendment. That can only be done by getting 2/3 of the states to be in favor of doing so (If I remember correctly).

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7059 Location: Colorado

So britboy, if the majority of the people somehow voted to re-install slavery you would be ok with that right? The majority wanted it, and who are you to get in the way of democracy? What if the majority voted to take someone's land? Take that too, huh? It's democracy afterall.

This is why direct, pure democracy is a stupid idea and why we have a democratic Republic. If the majority wishes to act against the rights and liberties of the minority than the majority does not get its way.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to eat for dinner...
Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote."

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

wyldejackyl wrote: Why, you just described the United States, 1990 to present!

Yes, you did. And I stand by my statement and all the implications thereof.

wyldejackyl wrote: The bad news, it's only getting worse as this social disease called Liberalism. Accept everyone as they are, blame everyone else for YOUR problems! WOOHOO!

Liberalism? Who's fuelling this irrational fear of Islamic terrorism, and taking advantage of this fear to pass laws that consolidate their power and benefit their sponsors in the oil and munitions industries?

Our problem is not liberalism, nor is it conservatism. Our problems are complacency, weakness, and cowardice.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5080

britboy wrote: So you're not really interested in defending democracy (unless people kind of vote for what you, personally want, which should presumably be allowed).
I don't support any kind of democracy, as all democracy is, is hegemonial rule.

Quote: And you're not interested in giving a population the freedom to decide for themselves how their society should be run (by majority rule), you'd rather tell them - screw what the majority want .. tough luck! People SHOULDN'T have the freedom to choose the laws they live under unless they think the way you do.
Wrong. Democracy does not respect the individual. It is tyrannical to not respect the individual. Some governments do respect the individual whereas others do not. Those governments that do respect the individual are the only governments that I respect.

Quote: ...
The rest of what you have to say is irrelevant.

bigstick61 · Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:02 am Post subject:

No, most of us are not interested in defending democracy. Freedom and a republican form of government, which is by its nature ruled by the law, is what we are trying to defend. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny; in fact, one could say it is a worse form, since it is far easier for a majority to overcome minority tyranny than for the opposite to occur. One should defend AGAINST democracy, not just against oligarchies, theocracies, and dictatorships/monarchies.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5080

bigstick61 wrote: No, most of us are not interested in defending democracy. Freedom and a republican form of government, which is by its nature ruled by the law, is what we are trying to defend. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny; in fact, one could say it is a worse form, since it is far easier for a majority to overcome minority tyranny than for the opposite to occur. One should defend AGAINST democracy, not just against oligarchies, theocracies, and dictatorships/monarchies.
A republic is no better than a democracy; they are both evil. You cannot lamblast a democracy as being the tyranny of the majority without lamblasting a republic for being the tyranny of the elite. A free state only exists when each individual is respected as an individual and that can only happen with the dissolution of state sanctioned hegemony.

evil muppet · Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Posts: 316

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

--Ayn Rand
--------------------------------------------