The Problem with the 2nd Amendment

evince said:
hey racidslong,


How can anyone be reasured when you say you wont shoot anyone.

Your a lying POS who cant be honest for one damned second.


When they come for your guns you will hand them over with a smile and we all know it.

Its either that or prison or worse.


Threating fellow Americans becuase you do not want to follow a completely constitutional law is abpout as unAmerican as you can get.



You just dont like democracy
Click to expand...

I do not like direct democracy and neither did our founders. It is nothing more than tyranny by the majority. Having a majority does not make something right.

Now you claim that "when they come for them I will hand them over". Who is they? I thought you didn't support confiscation?

Do you realize how totalitarian you sound? It is you who is making threats against my liberty. I am a law abiding citizen yet you give more quarter to terrorists.

What are you so afraid of? You shouldn't love your life in fear of law abiding citizens. I have complied with every gun law.
 
Democracy and Direct Democracy have differeing definitions.


are you going to pretend they are NOT different terms?
 
why do you pretend I have not done this before?


Ill go get the dictionary quotes for you to ignore again
 
I Love America said:
I do not like direct democracy and neither did our founders. It is nothing more than tyranny by the majority. Having a majority does not make something right.

Now you claim that "when they come for them I will hand them over". Who is they? I thought you didn't support confiscation?

Do you realize how totalitarian you sound? It is you who is making threats against my liberty. I am a law abiding citizen yet you give more quarter to terrorists.

What are you so afraid of? You shouldn't love your life in fear of law abiding citizens. I have complied with every gun law.
Click to expand...
The founders like you were racist
 
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/democracy



De`moc´ra`cy Pronunciation: dė`mǒk´rå`sŷ
n. 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
 
http://www.democracy-building.info/systems-democracy.html



Three Basic Types of Democracy

Any form of democracy tries in its own way to ascertain the will of the people and to bring public affairs into line with it. Theoretically this can be achieved by direct participation of all citizens (Direct Democracy) or by a body of elected representatives (Representative Democracy). Within the group of Representative Democracies the focus may be on a strong president (Presidental Democracy) or on a strong parliament (Parliamentary Democracy). As already mentioned, the question is not whether there exist some forms of direct participation or of representation but rather on how much importance they are given in a certain system.







Direct
Democracy
Presidential
Democracy
Parliamentary
Democracy

Example: Switzerland

Examples: USA, France

Examples: UK, Germany, Spain, Italy



Head of State
Any member of government in turn (for one year), no practical importance

The President is head of state and leader of the government

Head of State
is a differnent function than prime minister, it may be a monarch (queen/king) or an elected person



Government: members with equal rights, elected by the parliament,
representing all major parties (not really unanimous, but extremely stable)

President elected by the people nominates the ministers [members of government]

Government elected by the parliament based on a majority, may be dismissed by the parliament (especially when based on a coalition of several parties)



Parliament elected for a fixed legislative period, no dissolution;
changing coalitions, sometimes even extreme right and extreme left together against the center (though for different reasons)

Parliament elected for a fixed legislative period
clear institutional separation of parliament and government (but the officials may cooperate as closely as in the other systems, if they like to do so)

Parliament elected for a legislative period, dissolution and early new elections possible if a clear majority cannot be established



Government members need not be members of parliament

Government members need not be members of parliament

Government members must be elected members of parliament



Strong position of the people (frequent referendums on single laws)

Strong position of the president (veto)

Strong position of the political parties



Laws are created in four steps:
1. Draft by the administration
2. Consultation of federal states, political parties, entrepreneurs, unions and other interested groups
3. Parliamentary debate and final version passed
4. Possibility of a referendum
If a strong party or lobby threatens to call for a referendum, the parliament might be inclined to a compromise, the formal consultation process gives the public a clear view of the critical aspects and the pros and cons already at an early stage

Laws are debated and passed by the parliament;
lobbyists do not have a formal right to be heared, but do exercise some influence on members of parliament in reality;
the president may block a law by veto;
as the president is elected as a personality (not only as a party leader) by the people (not by the parliament), he may or may not rely on a majority of the parliament (in practice there have been some periods with a president forced to cooperate with a majority of oppositional members of parliament)

Laws are proposed by the government (being the leaders of the coalition of parties)
laws are debated and passed by parliament;
lobbyists do not have a formal right to be heared, but do exercise some influence on members of parliament in reality;
if there is a solid majority, compromises are sought within the coalition (and may sometimes represent tactics rather than vonviction), the opposition may be ignored until the next elections but then laws may be revoked or changed by a new majority



The process of making laws is rather slow, which may be a hadicap with more technically oriented laws (regulating questions of broad public interest but addressing a small number of professionals). Laws concerning everybody's everyday's actions, however, may get more attention and acceptance by the public and therefore be more effective due to the intense public debate.

A strong president may act immediately - but there is a certain risk that he rushes to conclusions he may hardly be willing to withdraw from even if they prove to be unwise from a later point of view.

If there are many small parties in a country, the close dependance of the government on a parliamentary majority may undermine the stability of the government.



History shows that from time to time the Swiss people does correct decisions of parliament and goverment that give in too much to lobby pressure, so Direct Democracy seems to offer effective checks and balances. But sometimes it just takes a long time (decades, not years) until a new idea is finally broadly accepted.

The separation of powers - though it might seem very clear in theory - does not automatically provide more effective checks and balances between parliament and government than in a Parliamentary Democracy.
If there are only two relevant parties and one has a comfortable majority, the parliamentary system offers few effective checks and balances.
 
Last edited:
evince said:
as it should be everywhere.


and it will be.


It perfectly constitutional to ban certain weapons.

The scotus says so.


when they are banned you will hand them over or go to prison
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, they never said any such thing.
 
OMG Almighty! The purpose of freedom of speech in our first amendment is so that people can criticize our government without fear of government reprisals, ie; being charged with/imprisoned for sedition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top