Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, sometimes you have to destroy democracy in order to save it.

I think we're a long ways off yet from civil war. Take a look at Greece, we'd have to be a lot closer to what their like before that truly became an issue.

Now granted, another 5+ trillion dollars in debt over the next 4 years, it may end up there, who knows.

dogma wrote:Did I claim the violent crime rate in Quebec was half what it is in Virginia? I don't think I did.

Maybe you should work on keeping track of who is claiming what. I realize its not a strong suit of yours, seeing as you only think in terms of "us" and "them", but it never hurts to develop a more nuanced view of the world.

Dogma, if you're going to attack other posts you should have a little bit of a stronger stomach for when you're called out on it.

Or, if you're just being overtly political, admit it and we can all move on.

Ciao.

Biccat, the US Criminal Law seems to miss at least 2 infractions present from 264.(1) to 278.91 CC. Uttering Threats and Unlawful causing of bodily harm. Torture (defined as harm caused by an official acting in an investigation) is also there, but I have no clue if that exists in Assaults in the US.

I have no clue how often Unlawful harm or Torture might come up, but Threats are surely quite a large part of Assaults, I'll try to find some stats on that.

daedalus wrote:Someone wake me up after election year is over.

I have a feeling that once again, Election Eve '12 will be followed by Election Morning '14.

Ouze wrote:Well, sometimes you have to destroy democracy in order to save it.

Vote for an enlightened Frazzled administration and we'll insure the appropriate measure of freedom for every citizen.

Vote for Frazzled, a wiener dog for every sofa!

Frazzled wrote:
Vote for Frazzled, a wiener dog for every sofa!

Might just be me... But I might even vote for that

I have 5 dogs now. I really don't need an additional one.

CptJake wrote:I have 5 dogs now. I really don't need an additional one.

Incorrect. You just need more sofas!

I am currently in control of the sofa. We have a nice comfy chair the dogs have retreated to, and 4 big dog beds on the livingroom floor, but the sofa and my bed are dog free zones. It was not always thus, but I am currently winning that battle.

I'd rather vote for the guy who promised me a pony.

biccat wrote:
Dogma, if you're going to attack other posts you should have a little bit of a stronger stomach for when you're called out on it.

Yes, I did attack your post, because it was poorly conceived. Your response was to put words in my mouth, which is poor form at best. If you want to discuss "strength of stomach" you should perhaps try addressing what was written in criticism of you, rather than what you imagine to have been said.

biccat wrote:
Or, if you're just being overtly political, admit it and we can all move on.

No, just continuing in the tradition of pointing out when you make foolish statements. Generally these statements relate to politics, of course, but that seems to be the result of your own shortcomings when attempting the analysis of political issues.

Aduro wrote:I'd rather vote for the guy who promised me a pony.

I had a bird dog once that was as big as a pony.

Aduro wrote:I'd rather vote for the guy who promised me a pony.

Hooah. I offer Trooper. He is a miniature horse vice a pony, but that should be close enough.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Biccat, the US Criminal Law seems to miss at least 2 infractions present from 264.(1) to 278.91 CC. Uttering Threats and Unlawful causing of bodily harm. Torture (defined as harm caused by an official acting in an investigation) is also there, but I have no clue if that exists in Assaults in the US.

I have no clue how often Unlawful harm or Torture might come up, but Threats are surely quite a large part of Assaults, I'll try to find some stats on that.

Its been shown that variations in the criminal code are unlikely to inflate total criminal offenses by more than 5%, which places Canada roughly on par with the United States in all categories save homicide; though Quebec and Virginia have essentially the same homicide rate.

However, if you look at historical trends, especially during the 70's and 80's, Canada has generally had a much lower rate of violent crime (especially as regards homicide); even with the more inclusive definition. However, it has generally had a notably higher rate of property crime.

purplefood wrote:Your political system is exciting in the same way playing Russian Roulette with a glock is exciting...

3 pages too late, but heh....

[Disclaimer] Kids, do not try this at home without the supervision of an adult.[/disclaimer]

Here's how you play Russian Roulette with semi-autos. You take 6 Glocks, and load one. You then throw them in a bag. For extra fun times, shake up the bag first. Randomly reach in, and pull out a Glock.

You then play as normal. If you "win", discard the Glock you just used, and repeat.





For and extra long game, use 6 revolvers, load each one, and spin. Then put these revolvers in a bag.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

2nd. Virginia is safer than the mor liberal state (maryland to our north look at the crime statisics.

And compare that to true central-left governments, (Canada or Québec being damn good examples) and you'll see that the violent crime rate is half that of Va.

3rd. Armed insurrection is supposed to be our right it is way to keeep the elected officials from just keepiing power and setting themselves up as a new royalty.

And this being said in a political language which is outdated by about 2 centuries doesn't actually give you a clue as to what is the problem here?

does this mean you object to democracy that was put forward by the greeks over 2000 years ago. It deon't matter when it was said/written it is a protection to ensure the people are not oppressed. See the undergrounds of France and Germany as a good reason for why this should exsist.

4th. you can have my guns when you pry them from cold dead hands. (ohhh and i have more than a few(mostly family heirlooms but still))

Tough luck, the sharpshooters are on the establishment's payroll. And the drones. And the guys that actually build guns. I reckon that if they really, really wanted your guns, prying them off of your cold dead hands would actually be comparable to a stroll in the park.

Yeah this is true. However they are human and they don't shoot the innocent. Owning a gun is not a crime. Nor should it be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:And compare that to true central-left governments, (Canada or Québec being damn good examples) and you'll see that the violent crime rate is half that of Va.

Virginia has a violent crime rate of 210 per 100,000. Quebec has a violent crime rate of 756 per 100,000.

Must be a generous definition of "half".

Thank you sir. Rebuttal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

captain collius wrote:

3rd. Armed insurrection is supposed to be our right it is way to keeep the elected officials from just keepiing power and setting themselves up as a new royalty.

Does that include ousting a democratically elected government?

Actually, yes. If the people are unhappy with democracy in general, it's their right to destroy it....

In theory... IMO, the founding fathers just put that in there as a "well, if you don't like it, you can always get rid of it, right? hahahaha. Now sign here" sort of thing.

That doesn't seem very democratic...

There is a common misperception here. We do not have a democracy. We have a Representative Republic. Meaning the people select people to vote for them because a democracy on the scale of the modern USA wouldn't really work as most people could not be completely informed on many issues facing the country.

In the representative republic a revolution could be used to dipose a president who has been in power past his time. (see: Egypt) Is it a perfect system, no but it wiorks for us.

captain collius wrote:
does this mean you object to democracy that was put forward by the greeks over 2000 years ago. It deon't matter when it was said/written it is a protection to ensure the people are not oppressed. See the undergrounds of France and Germany as a good reason for why this should exsist.

It was a protection to ensure that the people were not oppressed, though many Second Amendment advocates seem to believe it hasn't been all that effective and there is a decent amount of historical evidence corroborating that fact (the Whiskey Rebellion comes to mind).

That said, temporal context does matter, especially if you're talking about something like democracy (Greek democracy was not much like modern democracy).

captain collius wrote:
Yeah this is true. However they are human and they don't shoot the innocent. Owning a gun is not a crime. Nor should it be.

Since when? Humans shoot the innocent all the time, or the guilty where "guilty" is defined creatively.

captain collius wrote:
Thank you sir. Rebuttal?

You might try reading the rest of the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

captain collius wrote:
There is a common misperception here. We do not have a democracy. We have a Representative Republic.

No, the US is a democracy. Democracy is not limited to direct democracy, in which citizens vote directly on issues. Representative democracies are still democracies.

Further, the categories of "democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive. A republic is any system of government in which the head of state is not hereditary. A democracy is any system in which all, or the majority of, citizens are given the opportunity to express their political will; generally by vote. Indeed, there's a decent argument that you can't practically be a democratic government without also being a republic, though it is technically possible.

I think most states have a small system of direct democracy, where voters decide on laws. But those laws are usually just political footballs.

dogma wrote:
It was a protection to ensure that the people were not oppressed, though many Second Amendment advocates seem to believe it hasn't been all that effective and there is a decent amount of historical evidence corroborating that fact (the Whiskey Rebellion comes to mind).

That said, temporal context does matter, especially if you're talking about something like democracy (Greek democracy was not much like modern democracy).

True but the basic concepts are the same even though it is there more as a safety blanket than an actual protection. The simple fact is a armed rebellion will not happen because people have too much to lose. However if the threat of rebellion brings about change then it serves its purpose

Since when? Humans shoot the innocent all the time, or the guilty where "guilty" is defined creatively.

Maybe i didn't make myself clear (this is not meant as an insult) Most people tend to be upstanding members of society whos main concern is to get on with their life. Most special forces soldiers i know are good men who would not simply kill people because they are told to.

captain collius wrote:
Thank you sir. Rebuttal?

You might try reading the rest of the thread.

I did and i actually agree that the number may be off by some number. However IMHO I do not think the number are as close as you and konvik think.

captain collius wrote:
Maybe i didn't make myself clear (this is not meant as an insult) Most people tend to be upstanding members of society whos main concern is to get on with their life. Most special forces soldiers i know are good men who would not simply kill people because they are told to.

Getting on with your life often entails doing what you're told to do. Granted, I don't think the US military would make a habit of shooting American citizens, but I also don't think armed rebellion is something that's likely to occur in America. That said, were it to happen, all bets are off to a degree, and it becomes difficult to predict what the military, as a whole, would do.

The nearest analogous situation is probably Kent State which, if nothing else, shows a high degree of unpredictability where confrontation occurs.

captain collius wrote:
I did and i actually agree that the number may be off by some number. However IMHO I do not think the number are as close as you and konvik think.

Biccat claimed the adjusted violent crime rates for Quebec and Virginia were comparable, which ultimately fits with statistical evidence showing that firearms regulations don't necessarily impact the rate of violent crime.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

captain collius wrote:
There is a common misperception here. We do not have a democracy. We have a Representative Republic.

No, the US is a democracy. Democracy is not limited to direct democracy, in which citizens vote directly on issues. Representative democracies are still democracies.

Further, the categories of "democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive. A republic is any system of government in which the head of state is not hereditary. A democracy is any system in which all, or the majority of, citizens are given the opportunity to express their political will; generally by vote. Indeed, there's a decent argument that you can't practically be a democratic government without also being a republic, though it is technically possible.

captain collius wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Tough luck, the sharpshooters are on the establishment's payroll. And the drones. And the guys that actually build guns. I reckon that if they really, really wanted your guns, prying them off of your cold dead hands would actually be comparable to a stroll in the park.

Yeah this is true. However they are human and they don't shoot the innocent. Owning a gun is not a crime. Nor should it be.

Come again?

captain collius wrote:
That is not the classical meaning and is therefore not what i meant or care about.

The classical meaning of democracy isn't synonymous with direct democracy, even the Athenian democracy used a representative system in parallel to its assembly.

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:Well, sometimes you have to destroy democracy in order to save it.

Vote for an enlightened Frazzled administration and we'll insure the appropriate measure of freedom for every citizen.

Vote for Frazzled, a wiener dog for every sofa!

Cat people around the world would unite against your preposterous effort to undermine true natural order (of, course, feline mastery of the world)

captain collius wrote:does this mean you object to democracy that was put forward by the greeks over 2000 years ago. It deon't matter when it was said/written it is a protection to ensure the people are not oppressed. See the undergrounds of France and Germany as a good reason for why this should exsist.

Athens was a Stohocracy at it's best, and mob rule at it's worse (or tyranny). I think anyone should see why the highest military position in the army shouldn't be awarded by lotto. That said, democracy is probably the most logical system of rulership, if one takes up the view of the school of Law & Economics, and make political power into a ''marketable'' good. Democracy is, in that sense, much closer to a 'free market' of politics than any other forms of government, while others like Monarchies would be more closely related to oligarchies.

Now, imagine if today in the free market, one company was going to arm it's employees, and go hunt down everyone who works for it's competition. Regardless of the fact that it's been done before by your ancestors (when all business was 'mob' business), and that it's written down on some old piece of paper as a right of that company, would you say that it's fair? That it's necessary to destroy the free market to create another free market? And you think that taking it by arms is going to achieve that?

Dogs eat cats. Just saying.

Frazzled wrote:Dogs eat cats. Just saying.

I've seen cats eat dogs...

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Dogs eat cats. Just saying.

I've seen cats eat dogs...

I've seen pink elephants too.

Rottweiler vs. sewer kitty equals sewer kitty steak tartar.