@
4meAndyou This was one of the first steps toward an authoritarian, and eventually totalitarian centralized government.
According to your dictionairy:
au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism
/ôˌTHäriˈterēənizəm/
noun
1.
the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
1.1
Lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others.
It's the constitution that grants individual freedomes to it's citizens and lays out the boundries in which a governement can rule over it's territory. The governement are representatives of the people, so the people chooce the governement to represent them so they can make laws. Meaning that the people, govern themselves through democratic majority with protection of their individual rights by the constitution.
If a normal majority is formed (50%), that means that a majority of the people have decided that a certain idea must become law. This law may not go against the constitution, which protects the personal freedomes of it's citizens. And this law must be adopted by the normal democratic process which is described in the constitution.
If a majority in Viriginia is formed to discuss and legeslate gunlaws. That's perfectly within the right of that majority. They can even legeslate the gunlaws as long as they don't go go against the constitution. Because as the supreme court has ruled in 2008, the gunlaws aren't absolute. Which is kinda normal, since certain states already have gunlaws. It's not that the entire US states are 2nd amendment absolutists.
But the people that lost the majority, those that aren't in the 50%, they don't like this. So they get agitated and rally. Which is perfectly legal, because we are still a democracy. However, in representation, when legeslation has passed... they are in the minority!
That means that they are the ones advocating for their own authority agains the democratic principles of the nation. And they have a total lack of concern for the wishes and opinions of others. The others, which create a legal democratic majority.
I love how demagoguegical websites like the sources you just stated use the charicature of "law abiding citizens". They are taking away the guns of "law abiding citizens".
The moments the laws are in effect, and the "law abiding citizens" isn't in agreement with the law... then (s)he isn't a law abiding citizen no more. It's so fucking stupid to polish up yourself as being a "law-abiding-citizen" if you have no respect for the law if it works out against your opinion. When you go against the law at that instance, it's the person that does it, that becomes the authoritarian. Because "personal freedomes" in a democracy are granted within the law. The majority excecised it's personal freedomes by abiding by the rules, the democratic system. And it's the minority that expresses a lack of cocnern for the wishes and the opinions of others.
But of course it's always the other person that is wrong. That's why your sources have to use demagoguegical rhetoric like
"Because Black Face and his little crew backed down. ". You have to create this illusion that "black face" makes the guy ultimately evil while he's just performing his duty within the democratic sphere, and the "law abiding citizens" are perfectly reasonable people even though they are fucking over democracy if they go against the laws of the land. And apperently, a governement that has a law is "authoritarian" now because they "enforce law". In my opinion, that kind of thinking, is pretty fucked up.
It's like when they made the legal code for using the public road. At some point, a majority believed that it was smart to use a seatbelt. But the minority feels pissed about it and say: "they are going to make law-abiding-citizens wear a seatbelt". Even tough the law from that moment says: "you have to wear seatbelt while being in a car". Poor "law-abiding-citizens" that have a problem with the "law". It's totally ridiculous.