The Problem with the 2nd Amendment

Rose Captain said:
Elaborate a bit.
Click to expand...

Having a limited pool of potential electees does not in anyway make them less elected, nor does a relatively limited voting pool. Not to suggest I support either, only stating that such things are not inherently undemocratic.
 
Rose Captain said:
As anyone involved with politics knows, it's so much more complex than that. If the majority rules, why is there a distinct difference between state policy and public opinion?
Click to expand...

A lot of times it's because Public opinion can be swayed by many things and change from day to day.

If the public opinion is to create slaves out of any adult under 5ft tall, should the state policy against slavery be ignored?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
A lot of times it's because Public opinion can be swayed by many things and change from day to day.

If the public opinion is to create slaves out of any adult under 5ft tall, should the state policy against slavery be ignored?
Click to expand...

If it was an absolute democracy, then it should. If it had a constitution barring slavery, then the structure of the country would make it impossible to ignore. Its good to point out that my opinion here is irrelevant - we're discussing what constitutes certain forms of organization, not what should, or should not occur.

And If your scenario applied to a vast number of issues within the public sphere, would the society still be democratic?

Also, the idea that public opinion is so volatile that it's impossible to shape policy to reflect it is, well, flat out wrong and a way to justify class rule.
 
Kane said:
Having a limited pool of potential electees does not in anyway make them less elected, nor does a relatively limited voting pool. Not to suggest I support either, only stating that such things are not inherently undemocratic.
Click to expand...

It would have remotely democratic elements, but the society would need to be run by popular opinion in order for it to be classified as a democracy. Which - despite the term "democracy" being so broad - is in part why we have that distinction.
 
Rose Captain said:
If it was an absolute democracy, then it should. If it had a constitution barring slavery, then the structure of the country would make it impossible to ignore. Its good to point out that my opinion here is irrelevant - we're discussing what constitutes certain forms of organization, not what should, or should not occur.

And If your scenario applied to a vast number of issues within the public sphere, would the society still be democratic?

Also, the idea that public opinion is so volatile that it's impossible to shape policy to reflect it is, well, flat out wrong and a way to justify class rule.
Click to expand...

Calling it class rule is just you attempting to justify how you feel.
The US was never intended to be a true democracy and it isn't.
We elect officials to represent us and if they don't do that, then we have the right of recall, voting someone else in, etc.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Calling it class rule is just you attempting to justify how you feel.
The US was never intended to be a true democracy and it isn't.
We elect officials to represent us and if they don't do that, then we have the right of recall, voting someone else in, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're correct there. The United States was never meant to be wholly democratic - hence the restrictions on non property owners, women and minorities. So the current structure isn't that out of line with the country's original intention.

But the idea of class rule isn't new, or held exclusively by me. Adam Smith, considered the father of capitalism, had a similar view to mine - he believed that in a class based society, public policy would be reflective of the interests and opinions of the ruling class. Which is completely true today. We live in a country where the views of the vast majority of people is are not expressed in government policy - the interests of the rich, however, are. Go read a bit on the Pew Charitable Trust website, if you need some polls to support this assertion. So if that's not class rule, I don't know what is.
 
Rose Captain said:
Yes, you're correct there. The United States was never meant to be wholly democratic - hence the restrictions on non property owners, women and minorities. So the current structure isn't that out of line with the country's original intention.

But the idea of class rule isn't new, or held exclusively by me. Adam Smith, considered the father of capitalism, had a similar view to mine - he believed that in a class based society, public policy would be reflective of the interests and opinions of the ruling class. Which is completely true today. We live in a country where the views of the vast majority of people is are not expressed in government policy - the interests of the rich, however, are. Go read a bit on the Pew Charitable Trust website, if you need some polls to support this assertion. So if that's not class rule, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

I know this might be a shock to you; but women and minorities are no longer property.
Sorry to disappoint you.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I know this might be a shock to you; but women and minorities are no longer property.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...

But they were when the founding fathers crafted the basis for the United States. Which is the point I was making.

In any event, I'm not exactly surprised that you're unwilling to engage this topic in any kind of depth.
 
Rose Captain said:
But they were when the founding fathers crafted the basis for the United States. Which is the point I was making.

In any event, I'm not exactly surprised that you're unwilling to engage this topic in any kind of depth.
Click to expand...

From reading your posts; It's obvious that you're still living in the past.
When you decide to join everyone else, in the hear and now, please let everyone know.
 
This topic goes a long way to support the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Keep up the good work.
 
Yeah you NRAZI idolize the founding fathers that institutionalized racism!
They were slave owning sexist
 
Anti-Party said:
The gun talk has never been about guns in general as the NRA has painted. It's been about guns with the power of a massacre.
Click to expand...

If criminals that would do you harm will have guns with the power to massacre and they will no matter what the law because criminals don’t obey laws, why is it you believe that law-abiding citizens should be prohibited from protecting themselves with at least equal tools???????

Oh! That’s right, the loony fucking left have never been able to rationally answer that question, huh?
 
Rationalist said:
Cool story bro. But the only logical conclusion of your (flawed) argument would be the elimination of the entire Bill of Rights. If people today are too stupid to be trusted with a firearm, why should they be trusted with anything else?
Click to expand...

It was a joke, but the fact about brain size isn't. You are exactly right. Why should we be trusted with anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top