This post should have appeared inside another thread concerning the bad handling of this issue in the democratic uk. The thread got sucked into one of those data base incidents
The democratic uk relies on a gun control to achieve one of the democratic right: security.
Yet there were a malfunction somewhere and someone found himself at a disadvantage facing a criminal with a gun. Something that would have not happened without the gun control etc...So if there is something to blame here, it is the state for the gun prohibition policy etc...

The thread was a good ground to put into light several features typical of democracy: the use of the state, the use of equality. This will show that the issues usually never lie in the applied version of democracy (liberal democracy, capitalist democracy, anarchist democracy, direct democracy, representative democracy, nazist democracy, anarcho-capitalist democracy, anarcho-communist democracy or whatever streams of thoughts democratic people claim is the best when they try to bind their destiny with the eternal nature of democracy...) but in democracy itself.

So democracy itself says that after an analysis of the individual, it found that individuals in general have a demand for security, hence security as a human right.

Now democratic people can be divided into two categories: those who want to get that right respected by gun control and those who want that right respected by right to bear arms.

Each time democracy appears for what it is, that is the best means of hiding selfish best interests behind the common welfare( the famous "it will be better for all if everyone etc...)

Pros gun control have generally no illusion about the efficiency of prohibition. Nearly by definition, a criminal is someone who refuses to obey the law and it is not because there is a law of prohibition that the criminal will surrender his natural right to bear a weapon. So in that configuration criminals can get a gun.
Somehow, pros gun control think that the distinction between those who want to live inside the democratic ring and those who dont want (the criminals) appears more readable since whoever is trying to get into possession of a gun and then acting against the law is someone who is likely to behave soonly like a criminal.
This somehow is expected to make the fight against people causing insecurity easier since by bearing a weapon, one is supposed to show clearly his intention of not living by the law.
So the abridgement of the natural right of bearing a weapon is somehow needed to help everyone to secure one's individual right to security.
Of course malfunctions happen and advocaters of the other systems moan because they are left at a disadvantage to criminals who have guns.
To that point, pros gun control generally answer that they are exactly in the same situation, in the same disadvantage to criminals and then the equality is not broken in that respect.

Summary: that category of democratic people
demand a token of acceptance of the democratic rules: not trying to get into possession of a gun.
reclaim equality with their democratic peers.

Pros guns bearing demand the abolition of gun control because it is ineffective and they ask to be able of not having to exhibit a respect of a rule.
They ask to be judged on their individual qualities which means that owning a gun doesnt imply using it in a criminal manner.
They consider weapons as a great equalizer between them and the criminals.
Depending on their sensitivity, they can either consider security as a general service or not. In every case, they are spreading their choice beyond themselves in a similar way the pro gun control are.
Since criminals in democracies are much often democratic people themselves, they act reasonably. A reasonable aggression is made on weaker people who have no means of retaliation. Definitively people who dont choose to own a gun in that kind of configuration of finger pointed targets for a criminal. If people want to enjoy their personal security they have to own a gun since malfunctions of the general service of security are as likely to happen as they are in the other configuration.
Here the abridged natural right is the right of being secure without owning a gun.

Summary: that category of democratic people
demand to consider on their current actions and not on a visible action of good will (the weapon doesnt make the criminals).
reclaim equality with the democratic criminals.

Global analysis:
What is the use of the state? Each time, the state embodies those who dont agree. The state isnt at fault by nature it is at fault because it implement the vision of one side and not the vision of the other. So definitively the nature of a state is not to be questioned here but well those who are behind it, something that is concealed in democracy, that naturally leans to consider state as an awful thing while actually it is a good thing since it serves here as a peaceful transition between those two opposite sides.
Here also appears the true nature of democracy. It is clear that none of these conceptions cant achieved what they are supposed to: that is security for all as they claim democracy is designed for.

The situation is quite simple: there are criminals. Now it is the time to decide who inside the democratic population should be the targets for those criminals.
Pros gun control prefer to offer a random choice to criminals, distributing the odds between everyone and by doing so diminishing their own chances of being taken as a target.
Pro gun bears prefer to rely on personal means of security to focuse the criminals' attention on those who dont own guns as less dangerous preys.
Both categories use democracy through two artifices: rights and equality, to impose their view on all while it is clear that by design they are unable of achieving what they promise.
Democracy appears for what it is: a system made on the behalf on all to serve the best interests of a few.

Please (since you use the word in almost all phrases), give us the exact definition you use for democracy once more?

__________________

Ah democracy...
Democracy is all, democracy prevails, democracy is a beauty, a perfect jewell. It is the finest invention born out of human minds. Democracy is pure pleasure. I really cant understand democratic people who dont taste the marvels of democracy. Every day I'm totally delighted by the power of democracy.

What is democracy?
From a standard democratic stance, democracy is a project of society. It is a project of society based on a certain conception of the individual and the ways individuals interact among themselves. Democracy somehow considers all the individuals as the replications of a unit-individual, at least when it comes to certain fundamentals.
This leads to a set of beliefs concerning the society that must enable those individuals to live up to their full potentials.

Democracy is a project of the lowest level possible. It is the base of every other bases, the root of all roots. Every other aspect in a society is subjected to democracy.
Hence the conception of the government.
By government, one must understand all the forms of organisations a society can give to itself in order to make a social project come true.
Because of one democratic conception, it is classical to say that after democracy (as a social project) comes the political organisation. The political organisation is the second in importance, the one that might rule all the others whereas the political branch is in theory only subjected to democracy. Then comes all the other organisation, like economics (or the ways a society give itself the material means to achieve its society's project), religion and so on...

For example, a government has generally not the theorical powers to act out of democracy, to abridge democracy. While democracy allows of course its own end, this must happen through a specific procedure, showing the subjection of the political organisation to the society's project called democracy.

There have been quite a lot of subj-projects spawned by democracy: some related to the political organisation for example, like anarchism or popular representation, some related to the economical organisation like capitalism or communism, some interested in achieving democracy faster like nazism and so on. But whatsoever, what matters each time is democracy.

Democracy... My personal definition is democracy is what democracies do. While looking simple, this definition is powerful. It allowed me to trace back the original project through the consequences. The most marvellous aspect of democracy is that people evolving in a democratic environment become predictible as a whole. It is a pure joy to take the democratic world as it was at the start and to see the effects of democracy as it has been progressing through time.
It is a pure joy to read democratic thinkers and to say 'yes, this guy was right because I just found out the same through deduction and observation'.
Democracy is eternal. It will last as long as the human beings...

I though more a definition in the sense of a democracy is a way of decision making where every individual has equal power to propose and influence decisions that have an influence on his/her life.

__________________

How can an individual enjoy what you wrote if the whole has not the same purpose?

canada is a really low on crime & a safe place to live I hear. :confused:

Yea I heard they keep their doors unlocked through the night.
Thats a pwn.

Yeah...wasn't that from "Bowling for Columbine" or something?

__________________

Some people are like Slinkies.. They're not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

fun

Some towns and areas in the US are safe too, and people keep their doors unlocked. My friend's door is unlocked just about all the time.

__________________