Replies

It seems you’re immune to reason. A solitary ruler in office due to his DNA is a tyrant. He may be Plato's ideal benevolent dictator but still a tyrant.

That is not "reason", that is a bare assertion.

A King is not a Dictator. The scope of his rule can be limited. That's why we have different words: Caesar, Tsar, Dictator, Party Chairman, President.

You can have a Monarchy with a right to keep and bear arms, or a Republic where only the government is armed.

Now, I have taken out an older Oxford Dictionary, and we can get a truly objective definition of "tyrant".

1. One who seizes upon the sovereign power in a state without legal right; an absolute ruler; a usurper.

I don't think either of believe that each and every king falls under this category.

2. A ruler, governor, prince. OBSOLETE.

This definition is not in use in modern English, and it is not considered derogatory when used in this sense.

3. A king or ruler who exercises his power in an oppressive, unjust, or cruel manner; a despot.

(This is what I mean when I refer to a tyrant.)

4. Any one who power or authority oppressively, despotically, or cruelly; one who treats those under his control tyrannically.

Being a tyrant has NOTHING to do with how the head of state is chosen. It has EVERYTHING to do with HOW he acts. Your definition matches NONE of the dictionary definitions.

Like I said, due to your immunity and difficulty with standard English, we’re done. You stopped making sense a long time ago.

But, since spoiled, immature children like having the last word, feel free to write more nonsense.