| Davros |
03-08-2004 08:00 AM |
Quote:
Could I forsee such circumstances where the populas gets tired of the abuses and excesses that even an "advanced democracy" (which the American system of rule is not) might take against the intrests of it's people? Yes. You will have to forgive me if I don't go into detail beyond history or a vague opinion though.
|
Well its a bit hard for me to argue with a feeling or a vague opinion, but I guess you could argue that my belief contrawise is similarly poorly substantiated. I will however try and make some effort to enlarge on that. I do not envision a popular uprising occuring in the US until your people are denied the vote as a right to say how business will be conducted. Until the concession of the vote is withdrawn from the people, the people will remain complacent that no matter how bad a gubbermint is doin, they (1) were responsible for votin them in, and (2) will make damn sure they vote them out at the next opportunity. Popular uprising do not happen in countries with properly democtratic systems. This negates to me the imperative of the 2nd amendment that seems to suggest that an armed society is required to achieve a polite society.
Quote:
First, I never said anything about a dictatorial coup. I am talking about The People revoking consent to be ruled by a corrupted governmental system. Secondly, two party politics has nothing to with republican (not the RNP, note the lower case ) or democratic government. The only time politicians under a party system with n>1 pay any attention to their constituents is when an elections comes around. In this country at least they can bet on voter apathy and target their campains to only those that they fear will vote. After election day it's politics as usual each party trying to obtain one upmanship on the other(s) in their eternal power jockeying.
As for the question of possibility or effectiveness .... I presume you understand chess? Some pieces are more effective and valuable than others, but with proper strategy, and capitalization on opportunities, even a pawn may capture the king. As effective as our military is, a few guerrillas are tying us up in Iraq and Afghanistan. As lethal as our military is, it's greatest stregnths, on American soil, become weaknesses. For if a grand scale military retaliation of a rebellion were to take place on American soil, fewer and fewer Americans would support the current power structure as the death toll rose. Small groups of cultists and crazies, like Ruby Ridge or Waco, are fine to eliminate. But, everyday American Joe is totally different. Even when we secured our country from England, only about 1/3 of the Colonists supported it, 1/3 were loyal to England, and the rest where undecided or didn't care. Even of those that supported it, their numbers started out very small and only grew as the injustices of the Crown increased. Most of the Continental Congress initially preferred peacefull resolution with the King.
|
OK - dictatorial coup was the wording I used because I simply could not (or cannot) envision possible grounds for a populist uprising without repression of the people and the denial of political will by the withdrawl of ballot box priveleges.
Despite all the talk about small forces holding large forces at bay,do you believe that the arming of the populace is what is going to make the difference. In the event that the government has the support of the army and doesn't care about world opinion of brutal repression then the arming of the populace will have very little relevence. If there is no backing of the army, or the regime can be hurt by world opinion then peaceful populist protest a la Romania will be easily as successful
Quote:
I think I've shown already that an N Party system is a subversion of republican and democratic process. Thomas Jefferson lamented that political parties would destroy the system he helped create as he left the White House and saw James Madison and Alexander Hamilton power jockeying (the Whigs and Federalists respectively). One check they left out of was the check on money. Whether that was an oversight due to ideology or a forced compromise, I do not know. Some may try to claim that money is "free speach" when offered to political causes and to any that try to claim that, I say BULL! Money is a commodity, and commodities are exchanged for other commodities or servies. When money is exchanged in political offerings, there are only two possible return deals that I can envision - an exchange for votes on favorable legislation or private money in exchange for public money (wellfare - corporate or otherwise). Should governmental bodies (the world over mind you, The EU is even more comlicated than our system and more bloated with pork in my opinion) continue to placate special interests instead of representing their constituancy I feel those system must be torn down and reborn from the ashes, in the preservation of Liberty, Free Trade, and Human Rights. An armed populas facilitates that as a final resort.
|
I think that you can see that from what I have put forward in the first 2 cases I believe that the 2nd amendment provisions have outgrown their true usefulness in todays society. The NRA clearly enjoy hiding behind the 2nd amendment justification, and myview is that it is time that facade was exposed and removed.
I will save answering part 4 for another time.
Cheers NS [img]smile.gif[/img] |
