It would seem we made the case for using the vote as our tool to govern rather than the gun way back when we started the country. I think that was a wise choice. Do you want to change the system now?
Of course not. I'm suggesting that absent an armed populace which *could* choose to vote with their guns rather than by writing on scraps of paper, the power of writing on scraps of paper can be eliminated without any means to prevent it (except for writing on yet more scraps of paper, which I hope you can see might be problematic in this scenario).
Seems to me under the current constitution a vote has far more 'right' than a gun - even weighing in the silly 2nd amendment.
Quick aside: This kind of language is why pro-gun rights folks don't believe when people insist that they have no intention to eliminate/weaken the 2nd amendment, they just want to <insert regulation of the moment>. Just saying.
You can't really believe that we're allowed to own guns so we can defend ourselves from our tyrannical government?
Sigh. That's precisely why the 2nd amendment exists.
Our vote is what stands between us and a non democratic way of life - not guns.
How can your vote stand between you and a non democratic way of life? Seriously. Stop and think about that. Voting is an outgrowth of a democratic system of government, but voting does not cause democracy to exist, nor does it prevent it from failing to exist. You can't vote your way out of dictatorship, nor will voting prevent a dictator from taking power. You're foolish to think so.
There's no equality when one person has a gun and the other doesn't.
In a democracy, there's no equality when one person has a vote and the other doesn't. Funny how that works.
Guns (as weapons) provide power that is antithetical to the vote.
Guns empower those who own them. In a free society, where everyone is allowed to own them, then that power is spread evenly. In a society where only some are allowed to own them (like say the police or military), then that power is spread unevenly. Similarly, in a society where everyone is allowed to vote, the power of voting is spread evenly, while one in which only some are allowed to vote, it is not. Do I need to continue with the analogy, or is this sufficient to make my point?
As long as you and I are both free to own guns then we're both equal. That you may choose not to while I do is no different than me choosing to vote while you choose not to.
Besides as you so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge you're talking in metaphor. A gun is a tangible thing - a dangerous thing - unlike a vote. We restrict and track dangerous things. That makes the two 'rights' different enough to be incomparable in any useful sense.
Yes. Which means a gun is still useful and dangerous and powerful even if the government should choose to ignore the results of a vote. They are different in that way. Um... But that's part of the point here, guns still work as a means of the people keeping their government honest in cases where votes do not. Think of it as a safety net for democracy. We don't want to have to use it, but if we should find ourselves in a situation where our votes cease to matter, we've not put all our eggs in that one ineffectual basket.