Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65

Thread: Condi Rice: Any "functioning democracy" would insist that guns not be in private hands

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    "But, clearly, the prime minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands," she said. "The current circumstances come out of what I think is a very important and indeed appropriate action that the Iraqi government has taken." -- Condi Rice, secretary of state

    There are so many things to say about this - so many comments on the disasterous effects of our belligerent foreign policy, the asenine idea that we're spreading freedom, the hoodwinking of gun owners by neocons like McCain and Bush into thinking they're our friends - that I can't say anything for fear my ranting would go on for pages and pages. Or how about the fact that if we're doing this to an occupied country, what does it say about Americans that want to bring such a policy here? And that's not to mention the striking resemblance to the famous quote by Heinrich Himmler...

    "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

    From your cold dead hands you say? Well, to a neocon, that makes you a terrorist. Just ask the Iraqis.

    If you were an Iraqi, what would you do? As an American, knowing that even the "conservatives" of this country think this way, what are you going to do?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    Y'know, I used to think Rice would make a good President but after that statement I figure her to be no different than Janet Reno.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    We should look this over carefully to see if she was taken out of context, or perhaps was stumbling for for words. All it would take is for her to have meant, but have been unable to find the words,"in insurrectionist hands." Perhaps she was trying to avoid the word, "insurgent."

    I've come across information where she came down squarely for individual gun rights, citing experience(s) as a child where her dad or perhaps her dad and a few other local blacks used guns to protect their family(ies) from racial hatred.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I too would like to see that in context as the comment, as posted, does not fit all that I know about her. Not saying she didn't say it or mean it, just that it is out of character enough for me to question both the context and the source dissemenating the quote (not you ama-gi, but the original source of the quote).
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    I too would like to see that in context as the comment, as posted, does not fit all that I know about her. Not saying she didn't say it or mean it, just that it is out of character enough for me to question both the context and the source dissemenating the quote (not you ama-gi, but the original source of the quote).
    Ditto. While it is always easy to believe that any government official is anti-RKBA, it is also important to confirm. What did she mean by "arms." All purist libertarian stuff aside, I have far less heartburn over regulations concerning WMDs, crew served, and even explosives than I do over firearms. And as "citizen" points out, had she intended to say "insurgents," "terrorists," or even "criminals" or "rogue militias under the command of terrorists" rather than just generic private hands that makes a bit of a difference too.

    At the same time, Iraq IS a conquered nation and I would have had no heartburn with disarming the entire place until such time as we decided they were ready for self governance. I know it is not entirely fair to those who did not support Saddam, but a lot of folks clearly did support him and a war zone on foreign soil is not the first place I worry about extending constitutional rights to non-citizens.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    We should look this over carefully to see if she was taken out of context, or perhaps was stumbling for for words. All it would take is for her to have meant, but have been unable to find the words,"in insurrectionist hands." Perhaps she was trying to avoid the word, "insurgent."

    I've come across information where she came down squarely for individual gun rights, citing experience(s) as a child where her dad or perhaps her dad and a few other local blacks used guns to protect their family(ies) from racial hatred.
    Well, I doubt she meant insurgents because the American (err, I mean "Iraqi") government is currently disarming all citizens in Baghdad.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Why does it almost seem that the government is using Iraq as a proving ground of sorts for tactics and policies to be implemented here? When will people wake up from their self-important haze and say, enough we will now unanimously support only true patriots to run and rebuild this overtly corrupt government not the establishment and media endorsed septic runoff paraded in front of us.
    I guess I should watch what I say since speaking of freedom and liberty makes me a person of interest and supporting freedom and liberty makes me a terrorist…
    At the current rate of our government’s oppression we will all die slaves before the people remember that they were supposed to be free.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    We should look this over carefully to see if she was taken out of context, or perhaps was stumbling for for words. All it would take is for her to have meant, but have been unable to find the words,"in insurrectionist hands." Perhaps she was trying to avoid the word, "insurgent."

    I've come across information where she came down squarely for individual gun rights, citing experience(s) as a child where her dad or perhaps her dad and a few other local blacks used guns to protect their family(ies) from racial hatred.
    Well, I doubt she meant insurgents because the American (err, I mean "Iraqi") government is currently disarming all citizens in Baghdad.
    While I would love to respond and discuss that matter with you, I am going to refrain at this point as it would quickly turn into a thread hijack and take us way OT.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Sure glad I live in a Federal Republic and not a "Functioning Democracy"!!!
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    The initial intentions were to create a republic however the systematic brainwashing has led most to believe and unfortunately desire a democracy.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Butler, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    Y'know, I used to think Rice would make a good President but after that statement I figure her to be no different than Janet Reno.
    I am exactly with you, Huck. I had wanted her for president. But as one Raven said, "Never More!"

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    "But, clearly, the prime minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands," she said. "The current circumstances come out of what I think is a very important and indeed appropriate action that the Iraqi government has taken." -- Condi Rice, secretary of state

    There are so many things to say about this - so many comments on the disasterous effects of our belligerent foreign policy, the asenine idea that we're spreading freedom, the hoodwinking of gun owners by neocons like McCain and Bush into thinking they're our friends - that I can't say anything for fear my ranting would go on for pages and pages. Or how about the fact that if we're doing this to an occupied country, what does it say about Americans that want to bring such a policy here? And that's not to mention the striking resemblance to the famous quote by Heinrich Himmler...

    "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

    From your cold dead hands you say? Well, to a neocon, that makes you a terrorist. Just ask the Iraqis.

    If you were an Iraqi, what would you do? As an American, knowing that even the "conservatives" of this country think this way, what are you going to do?
    Someone should tell Condoleeza Rice that any functioning democracy should insist upon dental care to fix ridiculous gaps in teeth. This would apply to the British, but they are not a functioning democracy.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    "But, clearly, the prime minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands," she said. "The current circumstances come out of what I think is a very important and indeed appropriate action that the Iraqi government has taken." -- Condi Rice, secretary of state

    There are so many things to say about this - so many comments on the disasterous effects of our belligerent foreign policy, the asenine idea that we're spreading freedom, the hoodwinking of gun owners by neocons like McCain and Bush into thinking they're our friends - that I can't say anything for fear my ranting would go on for pages and pages. Or how about the fact that if we're doing this to an occupied country, what does it say about Americans that want to bring such a policy here? And that's not to mention the striking resemblance to the famous quote by Heinrich Himmler...

    "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

    From your cold dead hands you say? Well, to a neocon, that makes you a terrorist. Just ask the Iraqis.

    If you were an Iraqi, what would you do? As an American, knowing that even the "conservatives" of this country think this way, what are you going to do?
    There are so many things to say about this - so many comments on the disasterous effects of our belligerent foreign policy, the asenine idea that we're spreading freedom, the hoodwinking of gun owners by neocons like McCain and Bush into thinking they're our friends - that I can't say anything for fear my ranting would go on for pages and pages. Or how about the fact that if we're doing this to an occupied country, what does it say about Americans that want to bring such a policy here? And that's not to mention the striking resemblance to the famous quote by Heinrich Himmler...

    "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."



    Ama-gi, I agree with you WHOLE HEARTEDLY with just about everything you said, especially the part aboutbeing hoodwinked and spreading so-called freedom. The thing that p*sses me off more than anything else is the fact that so many of my "brothers" & "sisters" on OpenCarry.org and other similar movements USUALLY tend to THINK that just because one is labled a "republican" that they are for protecting our God Given rights. In my opinion, the whole republican vs. democrat "game" is just as silly as professional wrestling. AIPAC and the other monstrous lobbies control America through proxy....period! Condi, Bush, Clinton, Obama, whoever......All bought and paid for...period!!



    Jersey



    PS - STUDY "Judaism declares war on Germany" THOROUGHLY before you take some things that were taken "out of context".

  14. #14
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Sure glad I live in a Federal Republic and not a "Functioning Democracy"!!!
    ...And to the republic for which it stands...
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    We should look this over carefully to see if she was taken out of context, or perhaps was stumbling for for words. All it would take is for her to have meant, but have been unable to find the words,"in insurrectionist hands." Perhaps she was trying to avoid the word, "insurgent."

    I've come across information where she came down squarely for individual gun rights, citing experience(s) as a child where her dad or perhaps her dad and a few other local blacks used guns to protect their family(ies) from racial hatred.
    Well, I doubt she meant insurgents because the American (err, I mean "Iraqi") government is currently disarming all citizens in Baghdad.
    Thanks for the link, AMA-GI.

    That puts a whole different perspective on it.The articledoes say the Iraqi's are ordering it, not the US, but I can't help but think the US is behind it.

    I'd still like more information, given Miss Rice's earlier position on private firearms ownership. If true, this is a big change.

    Of course, I have to wonder if it wasn't a comment for the moment. Or is she saying the US has not been a functioning democracy (no comments, Thundar ) in the last 218 years.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Interesting. That statement of Dr. Rice's sounds like a modern, twisted version of an idea popular around the time the 2A was being written: that the militia and armed forces should be subservient to the civil authority.

    The idea was that the army should not be allowed to go rogue and threaten the liberty of the people, and that the congress and the executive represented the interests of the (civilian) people.

    Somehow, our modern masters have turned this around. The "representative government" has been replaced by, or is now synonymous with "the state", and the "armed forces" the people's representatives must control has been turned into "arms" or "armed persons".

    I think what she means in this contextis that the armed militias which wander around Iraq, and which are loyal to various people and causes other than the nation of Iraq, must be disarmed and disbanded. Okay, I can buy that; if a bunch of Americans started a private army in my neighborhood and told me I had to start treating their leader as my sovereign instead of the Virginia and federal constitutions, I'd be pretty pissed off. My loyalty is with the stars and stripes.

    But the language she uses, and the methods used by the American-propped Iraqi government, is not consistent with this. Plus it's all complicated by the background of this whole war/invasion/occupation in the first place, which is too OT to rant about here. I'm just very glad I didn't have the misfortune of being born in Iraq.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Just looking at the statement just by itself, it doesn't make much sense. A democracy insists that the government be run by the people, essentially organized mob rule, so the government is in fact the private citizens. So it doesn't really seem like it would be too consistant with democracy to take guns out of the hands of citizens... Or am I missing something?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    I call shannigans, since she's previously said things which directly contradict that.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    QUESTION: How concerned are you about Sadr and his role at this point? And are you -- do you feel like you actually have a pretty good idea of what his goal is here? It seems a little bit scattered.

    SECRETARY RICE: I think it's been very difficult to get a read on what his motivations on, what his intentions are. I assume the Iraqis may have a somewhat better view of that than we do. But I would just make the point that the Prime Minister has made, which is that he's looking to unite all Iraqis who are prepared to be a part of a political process, eschew violence and lay down their arms in favor of the authority of the central government and the proper security forces that belong to the central government. That's the point the Iraqis are making. So I think that the issue of Sadr, from my point of view, is an internal Iraqi matter to resolve at this point. But clearly, the Prime Minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands.

    If you wish, read the whole series of questions and answers: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/04/103781.htm

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Toad wrote:
    Why does it almost seem that the government is using Iraq as a proving ground of sorts for tactics and policies to be implemented here? When will people wake up from their self-important haze and say, enough we will now unanimously support only true patriots to run and rebuild this overtly corrupt government not the establishment and media endorsed septic runoff paraded in front of us.
    I guess I should watch what I say since speaking of freedom and liberty makes me a person of interest and supporting freedom and liberty makes me a terrorist…
    At the current rate of our government’s oppression we will all die slaves before the people remember that they were supposed to be free.
    +1 Just like our Brit Brothers... they went to sleep and woke up SLAVES of the Crown...


    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Interesting. That statement of Dr. Rice's sounds like a modern, twisted version of an idea popular around the time the 2A was being written: that the militia and armed forces should be subservient to the civil authority.

    The idea was that the army should not be allowed to go rogue and threaten the liberty of the people, and that the congress and the executive represented the interests of the (civilian) people.

    Somehow, our modern masters have turned this around. The "representative government" has been replaced by, or is now synonymous with "the state", and the "armed forces" the people's representatives must control has been turned into "arms" or "armed persons".

    I think what she means in this contextis that the armed militias which wander around Iraq, and which are loyal to various people and causes other than the nation of Iraq, must be disarmed and disbanded. Okay, I can buy that; if a bunch of Americans started a private army in my neighborhood and told me I had to start treating their leader as my sovereign instead of the Virginia and federal constitutions, I'd be pretty pissed off. My loyalty is with the stars and stripes.

    But the language she uses, and the methods used by the American-propped Iraqi government, is not consistent with this. Plus it's all complicated by the background of this whole war/invasion/occupation in the first place, which is too OT to rant about here. I'm just very glad I didn't have the misfortune of being born in Iraq.
    Very cogent post. I'm going to have to go to the link Pointman posted (THANKYOU) with the entire Q&A and consider in the context of your thoughts.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    She had no room to drop in my estimation. This just confirms me in my belief that she's an ass.

    -ljp

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Just looking at the statement just by itself, it doesn't make much sense. A democracy insists that the government be run by the people, essentially organized mob rule, so the government is in fact the private citizens. So it doesn't really seem like it would be too consistant with democracy to take guns out of the hands of citizens... Or am I missing something?
    I don't think it's inconsistent with democracy in a specific case. All you need is enough citizens who believe that everyone would be safer if no one had guns and that taking them away from everyone is possible. There are lots of people who believe those things. Wishful thinking on the possibility of taking away all the guns, but we all engage in some amount of wishful thinking in our lives. It's human.

    However, to say that ANY democracy would insist on disarming the populace doesn't make sense, since the existence of a nation where the majority believe in a right to bear arms is also perfectly possible.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    We should look this over carefully to see if she was taken out of context, or perhaps was stumbling for for words. All it would take is for her to have meant, but have been unable to find the words,"in insurrectionist hands." Perhaps she was trying to avoid the word, "insurgent."

    I've come across information where she came down squarely for individual gun rights, citing experience(s) as a child where her dad or perhaps her dad and a few other local blacks used guns to protect their family(ies) from racial hatred.
    I think Heller is proof enough where the administration sits on the 2nd Amendment.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    I'm confused. I thought she was pro-gun.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •