Forbes 400

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by john_galt

Longer, this isn't a democracy and the founders were against democracies. They said they were mob rule with with manners. We are a representative republic.

Correct, we are a representative republic. The new government was an experiment in democracy. A new type of government that came about due to the excess of power by two institutions that drove people out of Europe to the new land where they could get land; it was not available except to the government/royalty and the church in England, and much of Europe.

A true democracy exists in only small community where everyone can come together to discuss and vote openly on community issues. We are just too large for that, thus the representative form of government; even in 1776 we were too large for that. What the founders objected to was the Kings, royalty, and the bureaucrats (From the French: Bureau = Desk; Cratic = Ruler: meaning a ruler from the desk).
After the Constitution was presented to the people for ratification the answer was: hold on a minute; how do we know that we won't at some time get the same run around that the Bureaucrats in Europe give the people; they just ignore the needs of the people. Thus the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. The first admendment is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

And just in case the government did not want to listen to a petition to redress grievances, the second admendment is:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

JR

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by john_galt

Longer, this isn't a democracy and the founders were against democracies. They said they were mob rule with with manners. We are a representative republic.

The United States is a democratic republic. It is NOT a pure democracy. To say that they were against all democracies is misleading.

You claim that we are a representative republic. Well, in the United States that would fall under the umbrella as a type of democracy. In other countries, you're just talking about a republic with representatives (of whom?) that gather and vote. Weren't there a lot of representatives in the U.S.S.R? That 'R' stands for 'Republic' don't ya know...

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

Correct, we are a representative republic. Incorrect. Oh wait, you contradict Galt in the next sentence...carry on.The new government was an experiment in democracy. A new type of government that came about due to the excess of power by two institutions that drove people out of Europe to the new land where they could get land; it was not available except to the government/royalty and the church in England, and much of Europe.

A true democracy exists in only small community where everyone can come together to discuss and vote openly on community issues. We are just too large for that, thus the representative form of government; even in 1776 we were too large for that. What the founders objected to was the Kings, royalty, and the bureaucrats (From the French: Bureau = Desk; Cratic = Ruler: meaning a ruler from the desk).
After the Constitution was presented to the people for ratification the answer was: hold on a minute; how do we know that we won't at some time get the same run around that the Bureaucrats in Europe give the people; they just ignore the needs of the people. Thus the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. The first admendment is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

And just in case the government did not want to listen to a petition to redress grievances, the second admendment is:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

JR

I like how you just explained that the 2nd Amendment was "in case the government did not want to listen to a petition to redress grievances"...and not for personal defense...or for "being necessary to the security of a free state". HA!

The first part of the Amendment you...umm, forgot...to make bold is important! It's the whole reason for the right to bear arms! Repeat after me: WELL REGULATED. NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY.