David,
I am sure that given the chance, 99.99% of those murdered would have said “Please do not kill me.” Guns or open windows, still murder, but guns do make it easier to accomplish. A gun would certainly be more convenient in a basement unit.
I’ve met some people here that might attempt suicide by jumping out of a basement window. BAN kitchen knives, baseball bats, rat poison, golf clubs, fireplace pokers, ball-peen hammers, yadda, yadda, yadda
David,
you like to draw a line as to the difference between a ‘democracy’ and a ‘republic’. Historical learning takes the use of the term ‘democracy’ back to ancient Greece and Rome and it is these cultures that define a democracy. You believe that in a democracy the citizens of the state have the right to vote for/against laws. Here is a stumbling block, as what defines who is able to actually vote in a democracy. Excerpt from Wikpedia as to the definition of who in Athenian society was allowed to vote. Note that a large portion of the population were excluded.
"Citizenship in Athens
Only adult male Athenians citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, children, women and metics. Also disallowed were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city: see atimia); for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification. Still, in contrast with oligarchical societies, there were no real property requirements limiting access. (The property classes of Solon’s constitution remained on the books, but they were a dead letter). Given the exclusionary and ancestral conception of citizenship held by Greek city-states, a relatively large portion of the population took part in the government of Athens and of other radical democracies like it. At Athens some citizens were far more active than others, but the vast numbers require just for the system to work testify to a breadth of participation among those eligible that greatly exceeded any present day democracy.
Athenian citizens had to be descended from citizens—after the reforms of Pericles and Cimon in 450 BC on both sides of the family, excluding the children of Athenian men and foreign women. Although the legislation was not retrospective, five years later the Athenians removed 5000 from the citizen registers when a free gift of grain arrived for all citizens from an Egyptian king. Citizenship could be granted by the assembly and was sometimes given to large groups (Plateans in 427 BC, Samians in 405 BC) but, by the 4th century, only to individuals and by a special vote with a quorum of 6000. This was generally done as a reward for some service to the state. In the course of a century the numbers involved were in the hundreds rather than thousands."
Also, Roman citizenship and thus the right to vote for laws, was dependent on the citizen completing around 20 years military service. No doubt this disenfranchised a large portion of the population. the term takes on a new meaning and is not law of the people for the people.
David Hill said:
For the thick-headed among you, you know who you are:A republican form of government has foundation, a constitution or laws. In a representative republic, the citizens elect officials that in turn consider and vote on bills, sometimes irrespective of what the majority of their constituents wish. In which case, they may be defeated during the next election cycle.
In a democratic form of government, the citizens are permitted to consider and vote on bills. The majority vote wins or defeats the bill/proposal/initiative.
Based on that description alone, and not your personal opinion, what type of government is Switzerland? How does Switzerland enact laws, by the representatives voting in Parliament, or by the citizens voting, majority rule?
The article you posted, Oh Wise One, stated the Swiss voted to enact a law. That by definition is a democracy. I’ll ask my initial question again show me where am I wrong. Simple question even a multi-lingual idiot can understand that.
Hey David,
You should sue the Swiss for false advertising, they can’t possibly be a republic and have a democratic governance scheme. It just isn’t possible, because Mr. David Hill says so. :lol: :lol: :lol: As I mentioned before, when I grow up I wanna be just like you, destilled to the simplest, purest state possible! Like the republican-democratic Swiss Kirsch! :lol: 
:lol:
Tim, do you have hope?
I’m always entertained when I read the inconsistencies in David’s posts, some terms are reference right to the root in antiquity and a whole slew of others take on the modern meaning. It’s as if time stood still in some instances and merrily hurries along in others. But that isn’t a contradiction, whereas republican democracy certainly is. :lol: :lol: As I say, very entertaining!
This argument about the difference between a democracy and a republic is trotted out all the time but if you look up the word “democracy” in any dictionary you get basically the meaning I posted. Political scientists talk all the time about England, France, The US, Australia etc. as “democratic” countries, because democracy, again,means:
“democracy |di?m?kr?s?|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives : capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world.
• a state governed in such a way : a multiparty democracy.
• control of an organization or group by the majority of its members : the intended extension of industrial democracy.
• the practice or principles of social equality : demands for greater democracy.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek d?mokratia, from d?mos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’”
That’s from the dictionary that came with my computer. Here’s Merriam Webster, again:
“Main Entry:
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections2: a political unit that has a democratic government3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges”
And finally from the 22 volume Oxford English Dictionary, widely regarded as the most authoritative source for the meaning and etymology of English words:
“1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.”
There you go. The word democracy clearly and unambiguously appliers to the United States.
I’m sure all of these sources can be dismissed as “liberal” though, with only a small effort. Especially if the people appear to desire gun control.
David Hill said:
I’ve met some people here that might attempt suicide by jumping out of a basement window. BAN kitchen knives, baseball bats, rat poison, golf clubs, fireplace pokers, ball-peen hammers, yadda, yadda, yadda
And then there are the others who are in great peril whenever they read your posts. They might kill themselves laughing! :lol: 
:lol:
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/teufel/devil-smiley-023.gif)
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/teufel/devil-smiley-023.gif)
David,
in my lifetime I have only personally met a handful of individuals that used firearms (rifles). The thing that impressed me was their incredible accuracy with a rifle, in both sports and target shooting. On the whole they were peaceful earthly-minded individuals. I have only met one non-police person who carried a handgun and my impression of him was a wacko!
mike, the Founding Fathers must have made a mistake then:
Article 4 Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
They meant to say “…democratic form of government.”
Tim Brien said:Just one person you know of that carried a handgun.
David, in my lifetime I have only personally met a handful of individuals that used firearms (rifles). The thing that impressed me was their incredible accuracy with a rifle, in both sports and target shooting. On the whole they were peaceful earthly-minded individuals. I have only met one non-police person who carried a handgun and my impression of him was a wacko!
As I have said repeatedly, concealed handguns are to be kept concealed and 99% of the concealed gun “toters” do not go around brandishing their guns to show how tough they are. Most are incredibly responsible citizens, aware of the responsibility they have to NOT enter into any sort of confrontation, keenly aware of their surroundings to avoid conflict and to not break the law and loose their right with a felony conviction. I happened to see a youtube video of a bank CEO giving a talk on the bank bailouts. His coat flew open enough to spot a polymer handgun on his hip. You pass folks daily in your normal course of business that are armed with a handgun, sometimes two, with spare ammo, a tactical folding knife and OC spray. You will necer know, but statistically it varies from state to state but in Pennsylvania I understand it is at least 2%.
David,
simple fact is, when you live in a society that respects its citizens, then there is no need to carry concealed weapons. As you have already commented, our country has an extremely low murder rate (1.6 provided by you), one-quarter the rate of your state (6.1) of 12.5 million population. We have around 2.5 times your population, with numerous immigrant ethnic cultures, many of whom come from extremely violent regions. They see our country as a safe haven.
Oh, this is not the pump action I was expecting.
republic |riˈpəblik|
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
• archaic figurative a community or group with a certain equality between its members.
1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit
So there you go. Not really a significant difference from “democracy”
Tim Brien said:Au contraire, a society that respects it's citizens dose not attempt to control it's citizens ability to defend themselves. What if I aim, say a crossbow at your chest with a 1.6/100,000 chance I'll release the dart? Would you want to take the same chance, but now you are standing behind a 12" thick concrete barrier for defense. (Another of my absurd analogies.)
David, simple fact is, when you live in a society that respects its citizens, then there is no need to carry concealed weapons. As you have already commented, our country has an extremely low murder rate (1.6 provided by you), one-quarter the rate of your state (6.1) of 12.5 million population. We have around 2.5 times your population, with numerous immigrant ethnic cultures, many of whom come from extremely violent regions. They see our country as a safe haven.
Those references must be from your publik skul textbooks, mike. JK
From the 22 volume Oxford English Dictionary, the kost authoritative source on the English language:
" {dag}1. The state, the common weal. Obs.
1603 DRAYTON Bar. Wars II. x, Neither yet thinke, by their vnnaturall Fight What the republique suffred them among. 1651 HOBBES Govt. & Soc. v. §5. 78 Those men are of most trouble to the Republique, who haue most leasure to be idle. 1684 Scanderbeg Rediv. iii. 41 The Republick might be highly endangered by an Inter-Regnum.
2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation."It appears, we were using seperate definitions of the word democracy. This may explain where we were butting heads.
Read the whole article[url=http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html]here[/url].
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
.....
A Democracy
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
....
A Republic
The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.That article makes a pretty large claim–that basically everyone has got it wrong including and since Plato?
I’ll stick with the common definition. I’m not entirely sure why it’s so important to invent this distinction. Protection of the minority has been a feature of “democratic republics” since they were invented. I suspect this is an attempt to recast popular will as tyranny–e.g. the fact that most Americans are willing to pay taxes represents a tyranical imposition on those who don’t.
I suppose my point is too many Americans believe we are a democracy, (and they believe the USA is Nation vs. a Federation of countries, but that’s another topic) and more to the point made by some here, by definition a democracy IS majority rule (as I understand it), 50% plus 1 vote changes/enacts a law.
Where a republic has a foundation (The U.S. Constitution) that can NOT be changed by majority rule, except by amending the foundation itself. Big difference in my way of thinking.
Just you let you know I went for my usual pump this morning and it worked very well.
Very best wishes from an unrestricted pump free UK.
Now I am going back to my trains
Rod Hayward said:So what's a 'pump' in UK?
Just you let you know I went for my usual pump this morning and it worked very well. Very best wishes from an unrestricted pump free UK. Now I am going back to my trains
tac
www.ovgrs.org