Look forward to seeing some videos of groups of young black men lawfully walking down the street with AR15s strapped to their back.
All you technically need to meet the requirements of a democracy is a system of government where the people have the power to govern themselves either directly or indirectly through elected official. You can still meet these requirements in a country where the government controls the media and greatly restricts freedom of speech. I agree with you in principal that you can't have a healthy democracy without freedom of speech, but this might actually happen some day if we aren't careful. People are becoming so sensitive that they may actually start trying to pass legislation to keep themselves from being offended. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see our country start to chip away at the 1st amendment just like they have the 2nd amendment.
https://www.pacificcouncil.org/newsroom/do-indians-have-freedom-speech https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/06/article/free-speech-under-fire-in-india/ Not off hand. I was speaking theoretically. A quick google search shows that India is quite restrictive of free speech despite the fact that they are a democratic republic. I would hate to see the same thing happen here.
Yes, we should fight tooth and nail for things like freedom of speech. For example, in Russian they sending people to jail for reposting a tweet that criticizes government. Noone in US in their right mind would want to live like this.
So what we are seeing is the erosion of true democracy in India because of an increasing curb on free speech to intimidate government critics. That rather makes my earlier point.
Not that I condone drug use, but there are plenty of folks behind bars that are there for petty drug related crimes. This bill was basically commuting those who crimes would today be a misdemeanor. I believe also they had to be a good inmate, no trouble while confined. We have a bad private prison problem. However the last couple of election cycles have had bills aimed at correcting some of it.
I think we’re talking apples and oranges here. Do most people want “open carry” everyone walking around with a firearm over their shoulder? If they have any brains at all the answer is no, and most people won’t even if allowed. IMO unless your in an armed security or peace officer position, there’s no reason to make an armed presence. You actually make yourself a target and lose the element of surprise if your goal is self protection. That being said, is it ok to have a weapon on my person, in my vehicle, absolutely. And I agree with some type of basic restrictions, court house, bars, schools, no felons, certain age restrictions (actually I’d raise the age and give exemptions for military service.) But I do not feel the government has the right to bar me from being able to arm myself. Which is the underlying theme of Constitutional Carry laws, stripping the government as much as possible, from the ability to take or confiscate weapons. Open carry is just the natural byproduct of the laws intent, freedom. The people in Oklahoma by large do not want permits to carry a firearm and they feel the need of protecting that right from federal overreach. I’d say that holds true in almost all constitutional carry states. This wave of states gun rights has swung into high gear the past few years being fed by the daily assault on the 2nd Amendment by the MSM. Now do I advocate for proper training, basic understanding of fire arm laws, absolutely. If you’re going to arm yourself you’d better understand the legalities of your actions when you pull your weapon.
The definition of "true democracy" can vary greatly from person to person or from country to country. If the majority of the Indian population want significant restrictions to freedom of speech, then that's a reflection of what true democracy means to them. I think to some extent we've found common ground. We both feel like there are certain inalienable rights contained within the constitution, and we shouldn't accept their removal even if they're removed using the proper legal channels. IMO, the entire bill of rights should be placed into this category. You may not go that far, and that's fine, but hopefully you at least understand where I'm coming from.
I see where you are coming from, but I still see a false equivalence between free speech and guns. I don't think the Indian population favors the speech restrictions except, maybe, those in power, because the initiative is to curb the government's critics. If it continues, then that's the beginning of the end.