Monday, May 04, 2009

It's all in the definitions...

From Joe Huffman's Quote of the Day, comes this from Saul Cornell, a well-known figure in the debate over the right to armed self-defense, on a new book from two more well-known figures, Joshua Horwitz and Casey Anderson (emphasis mine -- ed.):

Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea recasts the gun debate by showing its importance to the future of democracy and the modern regulatory state. Until now, gun rights advocates had effectively co-opted the language of liberty and democracy and made it their own. This book is an important first step in demonstrating how reasonable gun control is essential to the survival of democracy and ordered liberty.

Well, of course it is. Assuming, of course, that one uses these definitions:
*reasonable gun control -- blatantly unjust malum prohibitum gun laws, the body of which comprises every gun law other than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, or, Anything besides The Four Rules and "hitting what you're aiming at";
*democracy -- the system of government in which if 51 percent of the people vote away the rights of the other 49 percent then that's just too bad for them; and
*ordered liberty -- you have only as much freedom as the nanny-statists allow you

Because, of course, you can't have those 49 percent whose rights were voted away be able to say "No" and have the capability to make that "No" mean something. Where in the hell does anyone get off saying the United States is a democracy anyway? And why does no one point out the differences in pure democracy and a constitutional republic, which was what the United States was set up as in the first place?