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

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 The "representative government" has been replaced by, or is now synonymous with "the state", and the "armed forces" the people's representatives must control has been turned into "arms" or "armed persons".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

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

-ljp

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I think Heller is proof enough where the administration sits on the 2nd Amendment.

imported post

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

imported post

Taking all the guns from all the people would not make a criminal a saint.

imported post

Pointman wrote:

Taking all the guns from all the people would not make a criminal a saint.

Click to expand...

No, but it makes the job of an abusive government much easier.

imported post

Pointman wrote:

state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands.

Click to expand...

All right..maybe because I want to give her the benefit of the doubt because of previous statements like this:

In a pleasantly meandering conversation over lunch in San Francisco last summer, Condoleezza Rice, then still provost of Stanford but already unofficially what she now is officially, George W. Bush's senior foreign policy adviser, was asked her thoughts about gun control. "I am," she answered crisply, "a Second Amendment absolutist." Growing up in Birmingham, Ala., in the early 1960s, when racial tensions rose, there were, she said, occasions when the black community had to exercise its right to bear arms in self-defense, becoming, if you will, a well-regulated militia.

I am going to try and defend what Rice said. When she speaks of arms belonging to the state and not in private hands I think she is referring to the fact that she would rather have the brunt of weaponry in the control of the side that is favorable to us and out "private hands" which to me would mean insurgents and rogue militias. Now, she may have worded things wrong or maybe she is a political shill who parrots what is best for the Bush administration at a given moment I cant be certain. But there are still 2 things outstanding that need to be taken into consideration. First, Iraq is not the US and if Rice has a double standard that says the freedom to bear arms is intrinsically an American right then so be it. Secondly, as someone mentioned before, Iraq is a conquered land and what do conquerors do when they take over? They take the weapons, so from a purely militaristic viewpoint, in order to set up our government we must oppress the ones who would stand against that by taking their guns.

All in all, sometimes people mispeak...other times they have a change of ideology...take her statements from a long period of time and make your decision of what she meant from that.

imported post

Well I read the news clip which is not very informative. However, it is clear that her comments were made in the context of praising the Prime Minister for taking on the independent Militias.

I do think it is the state's/government's right to have sole functional military/security control over the country. The independent militia's have to go.

Given the context I assume that Ms. Rice (who I am not fond of) was probably talking about military arms (mortars, anti-tank weapons, AA missiles etc.) and not just rifles and small arms or, to the extent she was talking about small arms, that individuals or organizations like the Sadr Army shouldn't be allowed to stockpile armories to use against the state and that when they do so the state is entitled to fight back.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Pointman wrote:

state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands.

Click to expand...

All right..maybe because I want to give her the benefit of the doubt because of previous statements like this:

In a pleasantly meandering conversation over lunch in San Francisco last summer, Condoleezza Rice, then still provost of Stanford but already unofficially what she now is officially, George W. Bush's senior foreign policy adviser, was asked her thoughts about gun control. "I am," she answered crisply, "a Second Amendment absolutist." Growing up in Birmingham, Ala., in the early 1960s, when racial tensions rose, there were, she said, occasions when the black community had to exercise its right to bear arms in self-defense, becoming, if you will, a well-regulated militia.

I am going to try and defend what Rice said.  When she speaks of arms belonging to the state and not in private hands I think she is referring to the fact that she would rather have the brunt of weaponry in the control of the side that is favorable to us and out "private hands" which to me would mean insurgents and rogue militias.  Now, she may have worded things wrong or maybe she is a political shill who parrots what is best for the Bush administration at a given moment I cant be certain.  But there are still 2 things outstanding that need to be taken into consideration.  First, Iraq is not the US and if Rice has a double standard that says the freedom to bear arms is intrinsically an American right then so be it.  Secondly, as someone mentioned before, Iraq is a conquered land and what do conquerors do when they take over? They take the weapons, so from a purely militaristic viewpoint, in order to set up our government we must oppress the ones who would stand against that by taking their guns.

All in all, sometimes people mispeak...other times they have a change of ideology...take her statements from a long period of time and make your decision of what she meant from that.

Click to expand...

Very well put and I agree.

imported post

...that individuals or organizations like the Sadr Army shouldn't be allowed to stockpile armories to use against the state and that when they do so the state is entitled to fight back.

Click to expand...

You mean the way Americans "stockpiled" armories at Lexington, Concord, etc and the British government under the command of Gage was "entitled to fight back?"

My recollection is that we fought a war over this very issue, and the American colonists had a different opinion than Ms. Rice and, perhaps, yourself.

imported post

bobernet wrote:

...that individuals or organizations like the Sadr Army shouldn't be allowed to stockpile armories to use against the state and that when they do so the state is entitled to fight back.

Click to expand...

You mean the way Americans "stockpiled" armories at Lexington, Concord, etc and the British government under the command of Gage was "entitled to fight back?"

My recollection is that we fought a war over this very issue, and the American colonists had a different opinion than Ms. Rise and, perhaps, yourself.

Click to expand...

The difference is we wanted independence to build a federal republic (or whatever.) What the militias in Iraq want to do is build an Islamofascist theocracy. You think it's a hotbed of terrorism now? Holy crap, imagine what it'd be like if we just let all the local militias have access to all the weapons/ammo they wanted!

Oh right, they're just freedom fighters, just like our Founding Fathers...right...:uhoh:

imported post

USAF_MetalChris wrote:

bobernet wrote:

...that individuals or organizations like the Sadr Army shouldn't be allowed to stockpile armories to use against the state and that when they do so the state is entitled to fight back.

Click to expand...

You mean the way Americans "stockpiled" armories at Lexington, Concord, etc and the British government under the command of Gage was "entitled to fight back?"

My recollection is that we fought a war over this very issue, and the American colonists had a different opinion than Ms. Rise and, perhaps, yourself.

Click to expand...

The difference is we wanted independence to build a federal republic (or whatever.) What the militias in Iraq want to do is build an Islamofascist theocracy. You think it's a hotbed of terrorism now? Holy Christ, imagine what it'd be like if we just let all the local militias have access to all the weapons/ammo they wanted!

Click to expand...

Right! The *PRIVILEGE* of self-government doesn't apply to Muslims. :quirky After all, the USA owns Iraq and whoever fights back is a terrorist.

No sir, we are going to force them to be "free" to make their own decisions,wether they like it or not.

imported post

USAF_MetalChris wrote:

The difference is we wanted independence to build a federal republic (or whatever.) What the militias in Iraq want to do is build an Islamofascist theocracy. You think it's a hotbed of terrorism now? Holy Christ, imagine what it'd be like if we just let all the local militias have access to all the weapons/ammo they wanted!

Oh right, they're just freedom fighters, just like our Forefathers...right...:uhoh:

Click to expand...

Umm, many of the Americans wanted to build a Judeo-Christian theocracy. Ever happen to notice the oaths of office for many of the colonies?

As an aside, what do I care if they want an Islamofascist theocracy? The American Revolution was not about the right to have a respresentative republic, it was about the right of SELF government. Meaning, people choosing to govern THEMSELVES in the manner they think best. If Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia want to submit themselves to a crazy dictator, that is their human right to do so.

If they decide to attack me, I have no compunction about defending myself by any means necessary.

It amazes me that people want to give the government a pass on Iraq, as if it is our right somehow to tromp all over the world telling people how best to live.

If you come over to my house and punch me, I have every right to defend myself. But once you are no longer a threat, I don't get to gather up all my friends, come over to your house, and decide how your household will be run from now on. Divorce you from your wife and select a new husband for her. Remove your children from their clubs and schools and associations and choose new ones for them.

Whether I agree with the Iraqis' theology or not, I do believe they have the same basic human rights as I do. One of those rights is the ability to self-govern without coercion and force.

imported post

bobernet wrote:

Whether I agree with the Iraqis' theology or not, I do believe they have the same basic human rights as I do. One of those rights is the ability to self-govern without coercion and force.

Click to expand...

+1

I used to console myself that although our military forces in Iraq are doing nothing to protect our freedom, at least they're doing something to give freedom to the Iraqi people. I no longer even have that comfort.

Now, all I can say is that we've created a big mess, and leaving too soon will probably make it worse, so I guess we'd better stay. Some days, though, I wonder if it really would be worse...

imported post

I disagree with a lot of things in this thread to varying degrees. I'll try to explain why by explaining the situation there the way it was explained to me by some people in policy positions whose opinions I very much trust.

Iraq is essentially suffering from massive gang violence. Imagine MS13, Crips, Bloods, etc with rocket launchers, all the fully automatic weapons they need, BARs, claymores, IEDs, etc. The members live in the same communities they terrorize. Their motives may not be the same as our gangs but their oganization and lawlessness is similar.

So what we end up with is Philidelphia, Chicago, LA, NY, Baltimore, Miami, smaller and all in Texas with those gangs. Mexico (Iran in the ME) keeps smuggling weapons, money and supplies to the gangs. The millions of law abiding citizens who are just like us in many ways and just want to be left the hell alone to go to work, marry, raise families and just live their lives safely are constantly faced with these gangs who make last weekend's violence in Chicago look like a nice, safe weekend in comparison. Some areas are under martial law, some are under quasi-martial law and some have essentially no LE presence.

The authorities cannot figure out very easily who is who. People who look like gang members from tattoos and living areas are often former gang members doing no harm. Others who look like LACs are some of the worst offenders. When the authorities try to stop them they run into private residents and hide behind women and children and LAC men who are dressed just like them. Some of the houses they run into belong to friends. Most belong to LACs. They rain down heavy gun fire on the GGs. So what does one do? It really is a LE problem, but given the ordnance the criminals have LE is not equipped to deal with the problem. Think the North Hollywood shootout but there are 100 BGs and they have rocket launchers and BARs also.

So we go in to try to stop the gang warfare. We start off by not disarming the population because we know they need their weapons for self-defense. But being that neither the Iraqis or we can tell GG and BG apart much of the time this makes things very difficult. And telling the differences between just regular run of the mill criminal BG and hardcore gang member BGs is nearly impossible.

So now they want to try a different solution. Let's disarm everyone so we know that if he has a weapon he is a BG. Makes the distinction much easier. HUGE RISK though which is why it wasn't done in the first place. We remove the ability of LACs to defend themselves. It is a catch-22.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

It really is a LE problem, but given the ordnance the criminals have LE is not equipped to deal with the problem.
...
So we go in to try to stop the gang warfare. We start off by ...

Click to expand...

Those two sentences sum up the whole of what is wrong with our interventionist "nation-building" foreign policy, and has been wrong for decades.

It is not up to us to decide when or why or how to play international police force. The media lies about lots of things and spins even more - but I have heard from MANY US forces that have been there and are now there that the bulk of the Iraqis do not want to be in a US territory, do not want the US running their government, do not want the US acting as their police force, etc. It's not just the media saying the locals want us gone. Our own troops will say that. Just ask them.

That is the main reason we get so little cooperation from the "locals." Many of them, even if not as extreme as the "terrorists," sympathize with the "gangs" in your analogy and want us gone just as badly, even if for different reasons.

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

USAF_MetalChris wrote:

bobernet wrote:

...that individuals or organizations like the Sadr Army shouldn't be allowed to stockpile armories to use against the state and that when they do so the state is entitled to fight back.

Click to expand...

You mean the way Americans "stockpiled" armories at Lexington, Concord, etc and the British government under the command of Gage was "entitled to fight back?"

My recollection is that we fought a war over this very issue, and the American colonists had a different opinion than Ms. Rise and, perhaps, yourself.

Click to expand...

The difference is we wanted independence to build a federal republic (or whatever.) What the militias in Iraq want to do is build an Islamofascist theocracy. You think it's a hotbed of terrorism now? Holy Christ, imagine what it'd be like if we just let all the local militias have access to all the weapons/ammo they wanted!

Click to expand...

Right! The *PRIVILEGE* of self-government doesn't apply to Muslims. :quirky After all, the USA owns Iraq and whoever fights back is a terrorist.

No sir, we are going to force them to be "free" to make their own decisions,wether they like it or not.

Click to expand...

Sure, that's coo...let's just let the Islamic extremists take over the Middle East...sounds like a good plan...

imported post

USAF_MetalChris wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

USAF_MetalChris wrote:

bobernet wrote:

...that individuals or organizations like the Sadr Army shouldn't be allowed to stockpile armories to use against the state and that when they do so the state is entitled to fight back.

Click to expand...

You mean the way Americans "stockpiled" armories at Lexington, Concord, etc and the British government under the command of Gage was "entitled to fight back?"

My recollection is that we fought a war over this very issue, and the American colonists had a different opinion than Ms. Rise and, perhaps, yourself.

Click to expand...

The difference is we wanted independence to build a federal republic (or whatever.) What the militias in Iraq want to do is build an Islamofascist theocracy. You think it's a hotbed of terrorism now? Holy Christ, imagine what it'd be like if we just let all the local militias have access to all the weapons/ammo they wanted!

Click to expand...

Right! The *PRIVILEGE* of self-government doesn't apply to Muslims. :quirky After all, the USA owns Iraq and whoever fights back is a terrorist.

No sir, we are going to force them to be "free" to make their own decisions,wether they like it or not.

Click to expand...

Sure, that's coo...let's just let the Islamic extremists take over the Middle East...sounds like a good plan...

Click to expand...

If you want to dominate the world, don't be surprised that, like the British learned, some patriots will fight back.

And no, I don't really have a problem with the Bhudists having Bhudist governments and the Muslims having Muslim governments.

What do you mean by "Islamic extremists?" Do you mean people who attack other countries and project their worldview into others affairs? By the way, the most "extreme" governments in the Mid East (i.e., the ones that the US government doesn't like) came into power as a direct result of US meddling. What do you think is going to happen after the US leaves Iraq in 100 years?