"Democracy of Force"

[Nebor]

There's all these threads about a police state, police running around with automatic weapons scaring people, gun control, etc.

Aside from creating two classes of people, "the government" who is qualified and allowed to have whatever kind of weaponry they want, and "the people" who are allowed only to have what the government decides, there are further problems.

One of the few views I hold near and dear to my heart is that arms should be equally distributed in a civilization. And my basic premise is that there should be a "democracy of force." My point being that when you allow the government to ban things (like fully automatic weapons) for everyone BUT the government, you begin to shift the balance of power. Now the government has more power over the people, even though they may be of fewer number. The more you allow this imbalance of power to grow, the less effective a democracy is, because the government has the force to override the people's votes.

That is why "gun control" is, and has always been far more about "control" than it is about "guns."

 

[Rainsford]

The problem with "democracy of force", or whatever name it goes by, is that it assumes the average person is the kind of perfect citizen who only exists in speeches by libertarians and actions movies staring Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson. The government may not be perfect, but at least in our system, it's elected in a reasonable approximation of democracy, which is more than I can say for my potentially mentally unbalanced neighbor and his 37 guns. Like it or not, when you get a huge group of people trying to build a society together, SOMEBODY has to be running the show...and as much as I don't like him, I'd rather it be George W. Bush than Nebor.

But that's kind of beside the point, because for as often as that old chestnut about "gun control being more about 'control' than it is about 'guns'" is dragged out, it's complete bullshit. People are OBSESSED with guns, but while they're quibbling over minor differences in folding stocks and barrel lengths, they totally ignore anything else important to maintaining a democracy. I won't accuse you, Nebor, of being part of this group, but I can't help but notice the close correlation between "gun rights" people and people who want to send the NYT editors to jail for revealing the illegal NSA wiretapping program. Now if what they're really concerned about is making sure the government and the people are on equal footing, doesn't a free press seem just as important as being able to own the 15 round magazine instead of the 10 round magazine for your 9mm? And yet that attitude seems to be EXTREMELY rare in this country, I would argue that the number of people worried more about "control" than they are about "guns" is about 5% of the gun rights population.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Nebor
There's all these threads about a police state, police running around with automatic weapons scaring people, gun control, etc.

Aside from creating two classes of people, "the government" who is qualified and allowed to have whatever kind of weaponry they want, and "the people" who are allowed only to have what the government decides, there are further problems.

One of the few views I hold near and dear to my heart is that arms should be equally distributed in a civilization. And my basic premise is that there should be a "democracy of force." My point being that when you allow the government to ban things (like fully automatic weapons) for everyone BUT the government, you begin to shift the balance of power. Now the government has more power over the people, even though they may be of fewer number. The more you allow this imbalance of power to grow, the less effective a democracy is, because the government has the force to override the people's votes.

That is why "gun control" is, and has always been far more about "control" than it is about "guns."

QFMFT