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

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

....I don't really have a problem with the Bhudists having Bhudist governments and the Muslims having Muslim governments.....

Click to expand...

Neither do I, BUT I do have a problem with them trying to destroy OUR form of government.

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

....I don't really have a problem with the Bhudists having Bhudist governments and the Muslims having Muslim governments.....

Click to expand...

Neither do I, BUT I do have a problem with them trying to destroy OUR form of government.

Click to expand...

The only people destroying our form of government are thestatists in our government.

Very astute of you to point out that you don't like foreigners coming into your country and changing your government. I would bet you're not the only one.

imported post

swillden wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Just a little correction.

The United States is not a democracy.. it's a republic.

imported post

Uh-oh, not this again... :uhoh:

imported post

I find it amazing that it took her saying this to make people here not like her. But if she were 100 percent pro-gun it wouldn't matter to most of the people here that her and Bush's foriegn policy is driving this country to bankrupcy and has gotten thousands of Americans killed. Kind of shows how ignorant most gun owners are when it comes to politics.

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

swillden wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Just a little correction.

The United States is not a democracy.. it's a republic.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but if you re-read my comment you'll notice I didn't say anything about the United States.

imported post

I think a democracy just about needs a disarmed population to succeed. Democracy is mob rule. A small armed segment within a democracy can easily overthrow it if they can overpower the mob. Actually, I think that most if not all democracies end up as dictatorships eventually when people figure that out.

That is why our forefathers wisely created a republic.

Actually when they first started talking about creating a democracy in Iraq I thought, "WTH? Why not a Republic? Works much better!"

imported post

swillden wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

swillden wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Just a little correction.

The United States is not a democracy.. it's a republic.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but if you re-read my comment you'll notice I didn't say anything about the United States.

Click to expand...

Then hopefully you'll pardon, sir. I assumed an inferrence.

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote

Just a little correction.

The United States is not a democracy.. it's a republic.

Click to expand...

Well, it was at one time...

imported post

GLENGLOCKER wrote:

I find it amazing that it took her saying this to make people here not like her. But if she were 100 percent pro-gun it wouldn't matter to most of the people here that her and Bush's foriegn policy is driving this country to bankrupcy and has gotten thousands of Americans killed. Kind of shows how ignorant most gun owners are when it comes to politics.

Click to expand...

You mean as opposed to non-gun owners? :quirky

There are plenty of forum members, and I think it would be safe to assume,millions of gun owners that do not approve of certain military engagements in the Middle Eastand their costs in both lives and money to this country. But there are also many that do support those efforts, including many on this forum that are and haveactually been fighting in those environments.

Your personal opinions on our foreign policy endevours, military strategies, and political solutions,are just that, your opinions. Lopping gun owners into a group of the ignorant because some do not cave into your particularviewpoint on politicalpolicyis more than counterproductive, it is a waste of time.

I don't agree with many members here on a lot of issues but that doesn't mean I think they are ignorant and that I am always right.

Maybe at leastgive that some consideration the next time you make divisive comments like that... :dude:

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

I think a democracy just about needs a disarmed population to succeed. Democracy is mob rule. A small armed segment within a democracy can easily overthrow it if they can overpower the mob. Actually, I think that most if not all democracies end up as dictatorships eventually when people figure that out.

That is why our forefathers wisely created a republic.

Actually when they first started talking about creating a democracy in Iraq I thought, "WTH? Why not a Republic? Works much better!"

Click to expand...

You're entirely right, come to think of it.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

I think a democracy just about needs a disarmed population to succeed. Democracy is mob rule. A small armed segment within a democracy can easily overthrow it if they can overpower the mob. Actually, I think that most if not all democracies end up as dictatorships eventually when people figure that out.

Click to expand...

Certainly not all, anyway. There's Switzerland.

I don't see how a republic is functionally different from a democracy with respect to the ability of a small armed segment to overthrow it. In fact, it seems quite a bit easier to overthrow a republic -- just capture the representatives.

I'm probably not understanding what you mean, though, because my understanding is that any nation not led by a hereditary or appointed leader and whose citizens have a say in the government is a republic. So pretty much any democracy IS a republic. I'm assuming that you're keying on the fact that the US is a REPRESENTATIVE republic, and drawing a distinction between that and a pure democratic republic.

imported post

swillden wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

I think a democracy just about needs a disarmed population to succeed. Democracy is mob rule. A small armed segment within a democracy can easily overthrow it if they can overpower the mob. Actually, I think that most if not all democracies end up as dictatorships eventually when people figure that out.

Click to expand...

Certainly not all, anyway. There's Switzerland.

I don't see how a republic is functionally different from a democracy with respect to the ability of a small armed segment to overthrow it. In fact, it seems quite a bit easier to overthrow a republic -- just capture the representatives.

I'm probably not understanding what you mean, though, because my understanding is that any nation not led by a hereditary or appointed leader and whose citizens have a say in the government is a republic. So pretty much any democracy IS a republic. I'm assuming that you're keying on the fact that the US is a REPRESENTATIVE republic, and drawing a distinction between that and a pure democratic republic.

Click to expand...

When people differentiate a democracy from a republic, they are usually pointing out the fact that in a republic the people do not rule, which is not the case in a democracy. In a democracy, "the people want it" is enough for a law to pass. A republic includes the rule of law, so it doesn't matter if 70% of Americans want to outlaw guns, for instance, they still can't do it. If we lived in a democracy, 51% would be enough.

imported post

thetheama-gi wrote:

When people differentiate a democracy from a republic, they are usually pointing out the fact that in a republic the people do not rule, which is not the case in a democracy. In a democracy, "the people want it" is enough for a law to pass. A republic includes the rule of law, so it doesn't matter if 70% of Americans want to outlaw guns, for instance, they still can't do it. If we lived in a democracy, 51% would be enough.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I assumed, that he was distinguishing between representative republics and democratic republics, not between democracies and republics, which doesn't make much sense. That doesn't fully explain the comment about Iraq, though, since the system being set up is a parliamentary system, i.e. a representative republic with democratically elected representatives.

Also, I should point out that pure democracies may also observe the rule of law, and republics don't necessarily have to. Whether or not laws and due process are observed is an issue that is orthogonal to the question of representation.

Anyway, I still don't see why a representative system is less vulnerable to armed uprising than pure democracy.

Edited to add some missing words.

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

any functioning democratic state

Click to expand...

The only functioning democratic state was Athens, from around 500 BCE to approximately322 BCE. None since.

imported post

swillden wrote:

Anyway, I still don't see why a representative system is less vulnerable to armed uprising than pure democracy.

Click to expand...

Oh,a constitutional republic ismuch less vulnerable than a democracy. The reason is because republics have minority rights. They are not majority rule. In ademocracy, if 51% of the people want to outlaw a certain religion or segregate a certain group, or outlaw a certain type of speech or disarm a certain group of people, they can do it. In a republic, they cannot, because a republic is rule by law, not by majority.

When you have a democracy, the minorities get restless and, knowing they will never have a voice, turn to other methods. Here in the US, we were fortunate enough to have a republic so that, for instance,blacks could turn to the Supreme Court for redress one last time before they turned to bombs and bullets.

The key thing to remember is that RIGHTS are only ever invoked by people in the minority (people in the majority get what they want through voting so they don't need rights. People in the minority can only be protected through rights). This is why I don't put much stock in the "will of the people."

The lesson for today: Rights are anti-democratic by their very nature. To invoke a right is to deny democracy. That means - and here's a shocker - the Bill of Rights is one of the most anti-democratic documents in the free world.

This entire concept has been lost since Americans are mostly educated by the government.

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

When you have a democracy, the minorities get restless and, knowing they will never have a voice, turn to other methods.

Click to expand...

Okay, that makes sense. Representative republics aren't less vulnerable, but assuming they do a good job of avoiding the tyranny of the majority, uprisings are less likely.

imported post

Thank you ama-gi, you explained it very well before I got back here.

Swillden, there is always tyranny by the majority. In any free society there are those who are more successful for myriad reasons. The most succesful are always in the minority as the normal curve tends to work even in this. The majority always end up demanding largess from the successful minority. Eventually, they will take the largess by vote and/or force at which time the best and brightest of the society are killed or leave, either way leaving only the mediocre who will typically eventually be conquered or will otherwise fail.

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

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...

The right of self government does not apply to those who incite, declare, and then lose a war and find themselves a conquered people or nation. Conquered nations get disarmed. That and a host of other things normally inflicted present a number of good reasons not to lose wars, hopefully not to start them in the first place.

More broadly speaking, any nation or people that proves it/themselves incapable of peacefully coexisting with their neighbors should not be surprised when those neighbors take measures to reduce that nation or people's ability to present a threat. If Islamic nations don't like being disarmed, they probably ought to stop threatening to exterminate the Jews, destroy the USA, behead every editorical cartoonist who offends their particular sensibilities, and generally converting the entire world at the point of the sword. Even the much maligned "zionists" seem happy to settle for a fairly small, and relatively poor spot of mostly God forsaken ground. No ranting there about the whole world and certainly no forced coversions to Judiasim of which I'm aware. Even Christianity, as a whole, outgrew the whole forced conversion thing quite some time ago.

So, to be grossly politically incorrect, and just a bit flippant, if Islam wants to be treated like an adult and allowed access to adult items like guns, it needs to collectively grow the hell up and learn to peacefully coexist with the whole range of humanity including those who don't care to convert and even those who will take great pleasure in mocking and ridiculing what Islam holds sacred. Heaven knows virtually every other religion now manages to do just that reasonably well.

Now, I consider the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to be grossly off topic on this list. I suspect we could debate a long time about what was or was not justified and how far back we might push the blame for the current situation. But the bottom line is we are there, the Iraqis are a conquered nation, and by any historical measurment, they are being treated explemplary by their victors.

PLEASE do NOT make the libertarian mistake of equating all nations as equal or even assuming that relations among nations do or even should follow the exact principles or rules that govern interactions between individuals or between individuals and just government.

Charles

imported post

bobernet wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I used to think the same thing. Then I really gave some thought to the situation and I have had to come to a slightly different conclusion.

Very few people will criticize our involvement in WWII. A few will point out how FDR "provoked" the Japanese into attacking and so forth. But little doubt Hitler and his allies needed to be stopped and once in, no doubt we had a war for our survival that we had to win. So we fought. And we made a lot of mistakes and a lot of blood was lost that might have been spared had better decisions been made. Indeed, some really bad decisions such as to support Stalin were the only possible decision that could have been made at the time. Such decisions, especially, created future problems that we had to deal with. But the key issue is that we won and Hitler & co lost and we were around to deal with future problems. Maybe we should have let Patton roll into Moscow when he wanted to. Maybe not. Quite likely FDR sold us and eastern Europe out to the communist russians.

Over the next 40 years or so we were engaged in another war. It was the cold war and we say that phrase so often I think we forget it was a REAL war and our survival was every bit as much at stake as it had been in the 1940s. It was a different kind of war than the world had ever seen before. It was waged very differently than previous wars had been waged. And it was the first war with the very real potential to end human and much other life on earth.

A lot of mistakes, large and small were made during the waging of that war. Lives were lost and problems created that might have been avoided had better decisions been made, or even possible in some cases. Quite possibly, some presidents and other officials along the way were less than completely loyal to our nation and sold us out on some things. And we certainly have some residual issues with which to deal because of the cold war. But WE survived and the USSR did not. Eastern Europe is once again free to screw up their own nations as they see fit.

Yes, the USA has made mistakes. And in some cases flat out done things that can not be justified. But I no longer look at 40 years of cold war as merely us meddling or imposing our will or otherwise running amok in the world. I look at those 40 years as waging a very real war for our very survival. No doubt we made mistakes and upset some folks along the way. They'd probably never believe they are better off for us having won rather than the USSR having won that war, just as some no doubt figured life under the Nazis would be better than increased Anglo-American influence in the world. So be it; they are free to hold AND EXPRESS those opinions precisely because we did win.

My nation is far from perfect. But it is my nation. And I am free to live anyplace else that will take me. I choose to live here. And looked at through the lens of fighting a very real war for our very survival, our foreign policy during the last half of the 20th century looks a lot less malicious, even less incompetent, and whole lot more like the kind of less than ideal decisions and actions and alliances that mark any desperate war for survival.

So rather than declaring 40 years of cold war efforts a malicious failure, we ought to at least pause and consider what was won: the Berlin Wall fell, Germany was re-united, all of Eastern Europe liberated, and even the various nations of the USSR granted independence, the USA survived, AND we avoided nuclear war while significantly limiting the number of nations with WMDs. THAT is a picture pretty enough to see even with a few warts of mistakes and on-going problems, IMHO.

Just a thought that seemed appropriate to pass along.