In a democracy, governmental authority derives from consent of the governed. If it is not functionally possible for a populace to withdraw its consent from its government, then its “consent” is meaningless. Therefore, democracy requires that the populace be capable of overthrowing its government. In a country where the government owns guns, private gun ownership is necessary for effective self-rule.
In a democracy, governmental authority derives from consent of the governed. If it is not functionally possible for a populace to withdraw its consent from its government, then its “consent” is meaningless.
I partially agree with you, if a nation-wide government have the control of the military and/or the police forces, there can be no democracy, and I don’t consider that a democratic system currently exist.
Therefore, democracy requires that the populace be capable of overthrowing its government. In a country where the government owns guns, private gun ownership is necessary for effective self-rule.
However, I strongly disagree with the need for private gun ownership, I would rather say that there should be no nations (and therefore no national military and police), but rather local/regional police and military forces, democraticly administrated by the population of those small geographic areas. I think there should also be a larger political union between those small regions (continental/world) union, with one institution to organize collaboration between military/police force.
P.S. : I do not know very much the history of the US but I thought the second amendment was more about the possibility for citizens to create local militias than private gun ownership, which is only a tool to allow their creation
Local police have historically been made up of power-hungry people though, and it has lead to much suffering through the history of the US. “A People’s History of the United States” contains a lot of historical evidence of this.
In a democracy, governmental authority derives from consent of the governed. If it is not functionally possible for a populace to withdraw its consent from its government, then its “consent” is meaningless. Therefore, democracy requires that the populace be capable of overthrowing its government. In a country where the government owns guns, private gun ownership is necessary for effective self-rule.
I partially agree with you, if a nation-wide government have the control of the military and/or the police forces, there can be no democracy, and I don’t consider that a democratic system currently exist.
However, I strongly disagree with the need for private gun ownership, I would rather say that there should be no nations (and therefore no national military and police), but rather local/regional police and military forces, democraticly administrated by the population of those small geographic areas. I think there should also be a larger political union between those small regions (continental/world) union, with one institution to organize collaboration between military/police force.
P.S. : I do not know very much the history of the US but I thought the second amendment was more about the possibility for citizens to create local militias than private gun ownership, which is only a tool to allow their creation
Local police have historically been made up of power-hungry people though, and it has lead to much suffering through the history of the US. “A People’s History of the United States” contains a lot of historical evidence of this.