The Achilles Heel of pure democracy is for 51% to enslave 49%. For a republic, it is the ability of leaders to defy the will of the people. The combination of democratic and republican government characteristics was intended to maximize the strengths while minimizing the weaknesses.
Reading the writings of the founders of this country and framers of our Constitution makes it crystal clear that they considered an armed citizenry an antidote to run-away government. While the vote was orders of magnitude to be prefered over armed interdiction, they recognized that humans are very suceptible to the Siren song of power.
There has been, since the founding of the country, a certain portion of the citizenry who stayed armed for the purpose of forced government change, if it became necessary. The proportion seems to be on the upswing at the moment as the leadership seems to be pointing toward socialism at the expense of individualism. There must be a large number of citizens who have become sufficiently alarmed over future gun and ammo availability to account for the current run. I know a number of first time gun owners who are neither paniced nor scared, but do consider their purchases to be prudent, current conditions considered
The concept that an armed and committed 1% can rule (as opposed to govern) an unarmed, law-abiding 99% may not be currently wasted on Americans. As for a citizen confrontation with the existing government, who would have supposed the Czech citizens could have ever faced down the Communist led Czech Army? You have to keep in mind that most soldiers are citizens first. There is a large gap between a riot and a popular uprising.
What do you suppose would happen if there was a move to eliminate the Presidental term limit within the next couple of years?
Last edited by Rocketman; 04/29/09 11:52 AM.
