Actually, I meant what I said.

While there was a debate as to whether this country should have been a Democracy or a Republic, there were no second thoughts - it was a democratic decision that chose and debated the form of government we have, today, even.

It was democratically decided that, since a Republic guarantees certain rights that can not be taken away for any reason(just by being a citizen of the country in which the Republic is founded), and a Democracy, as you say, gives the "average joe" the ability to make laws, a Democracy is quite easier to abuse.

I'll let you in on a little secret - in a democratic Republic, the "average joe" CAN make laws(just as in a democracy), but those laws must be subject to the same scrutiny that every other law must - they must not violate the Constitution or its amendments, and they will be voted on, just like every other law.

In other words, a Republic was chosen not to prevent the "average joe" from making laws, but to be sure that there would be a process in place when the "average joe" WANTED to make a law, that they must not violate the rights of others that should have the same rights as he does.

Not really sure what the Latin and Greek referenced, as the OED shows that the English settlers of this country already had an ENGLISH definition for both of the words "Democracy" and "Republic" that extended the meanings far beyond their original Latin and Greek meanings, but ok.

I just think it's funny that when people think of "Republic" they immediately think of "Democracy," as the two have obvious differences - none of which detract from the power of the people, as they do the power of the government OVER the people.

I.e. - In a Democracy, if the majority of people(not necessarily 51%, statistically) agreed with O'Reilly that someone should shut up, that person would be subject to public prosecution and the public would execute on that prosecution quite swiftly. In a Republic, that person may be CRITICIZED by others, but those others would have to try that person in a court of law under existing laws, with regards to his rights as a citizen of the country.

I certainly do not want to see this country end up American Idol-voting for or against laws and prosecutions.

[EDIT]
Well then, we're speaking in two different contexts - you're speaking in context of The Federalist Papers, themselves(which applied themselves toward the ratification of the Constitution in New York State) - I'm speaking in context of the Constitution, itself. I apologize for not recognizing that, but I do believe that the member states of this country ratified the Constitution, and not The Federalist Papers, even though The Federalist Papers DID play a part in it's ratification(and therefore must be read and interpreted especially for New York).

New York State(and Alexander Hamilton), at the time, was a big proponent of the same central and private banking that dominated over the people in other countries, and led to individual rights being curtailed as a result, so it's quite understandable that they would be least likely to ratify, as there were attempts made, within the body of the Constitution, to limit that power here in the states.

Like I said - limit. Nowadays there exists in the United States a much more powerful private central bank, simply because of what good people failed to recognize(namely, Woodrow Wilson, himself), and that's what Ron Paul, in this video, helps to explain.

What "upstart tyrannical group" is the most threatening, outside of a private central bank?

the United States government is not supposed to be a democracy, but rather a democratic Republic

Republic - from Latin, res (thing/with regard to) and publicus (public)
Democracy - from Greek, demos (people) and krateo (rule)

What you meant to say is the gov't is a representative democracy / republic. (Yes your civics class in high school was full of crap). It was supposed to be a Democracy, but the founding fathers had second thoughts about the average joe making laws. We might end up Jerry Springer and American Idol...

[EDIT] I like this, I found on Answers.com

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay articulated this conception of a republic in their 1788 essays that were later compiled as The Federalist Papers. These essays, intended to support the ratification of the federal Constitution in New York, distinguished a republic from a pure democracy, describing the latter as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." In the context of The Federalist Papers, a republic differed from a pure democracy only in that it was "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place." According to this interpretation, a republic was a representative democracy. As Madison pointed out, the representative principle militates against the irresponsible exercise of majority power, for it makes a large republic possible, and it is difficult in a large republic for any faction to become a majority. According to these authors, a large republic would foster the formation of many factions, and this sheer multiplicity of interests in turn would create shifting coalitions, which would hinder the formation of an oppressive or irresponsible majority. Furthermore, because of the checks and balances and separation of powers between different branches and levels of government, any upstart tyrannical faction would encounter many legal and institutional roadblocks.

The Aaron Burr/Alexander Hamilton one was golden.