Last edited:
Condi Rice on private ownership of firearms
- Thread starter Buzzcook
- Start date
Kreyzhorse
New member
Her opinion doesn't surprise me at all.
No one involved in fighting Iraq thinks they need more small arms floating around over there or that militias are a good thing. I don't know if that's hypocritical but the presence of armed factions is bad news for our troops so it would be silly for her to say otherwise.
One of the accepted cornerstones of stable governments worldwide is the state having more or less a monopoly on the use of force.
One of the accepted cornerstones of stable governments worldwide is the state having more or less a monopoly on the use of force.
Unregistered
Moderator
Yes, I agree its hypocritical. The insurgents in Iraq are out enemy, but they are using arms exactly for the reasons granted in the Constitution... to fight a government with which they do not agree.
I think you are applying our Bill of Rights beyond the borders it was intended to protect. While there is no question, in my mind at least, that these "truths" are "self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." take a look at where this language appears. It is in the Declaration of Independence. We the People charted our own course and chose that path, along with all the risks that were certain to appear along the way.
It is now up to the Iraqi people to manage their own affairs so we can get the heck outta there. Whether they will choose the full compliment of individual freedoms, over Sharia Law, remains to be seen.
It is now up to the Iraqi people to manage their own affairs so we can get the heck outta there. Whether they will choose the full compliment of individual freedoms, over Sharia Law, remains to be seen.
sarge, with respect, I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Take a closer look at what Condi says, and you will find that she is implying that the Iraqi action to not allow private ownership is indicative of any responsible democracy.... which would include the USA as far as I can tell.
Shocking words. Shocking indeed.
Shocking words. Shocking indeed.
It never ceases to amaze me that people that have most likely never even held a gun are the ones that stand up and say everyone else shouldn't have them..
I, for example, have never driven or riden in a Rolls Royce so It is unfair of me to say that they are useless therefor no one should be allowed to have them. I don't know jack about a 'royce so I keep my mouth shut about 'em.
Why is it that common sense never rules the thoughts of senators/ politicians?
I, for example, have never driven or riden in a Rolls Royce so It is unfair of me to say that they are useless therefor no one should be allowed to have them. I don't know jack about a 'royce so I keep my mouth shut about 'em.
Why is it that common sense never rules the thoughts of senators/ politicians?
applesanity
New member
Methinks it's one of those statements taken horribly out of context. Like McCain saying that we're gonna be in Iraq for 100 years.
I believe that we may be taking her words out of context.
IMHO, when she is refering to arms and militias (specifically the Shiite ones opposed to GOI and Coalition Forces), she is talking about mines, explosives, MANPADs, RPGs, IEDs, EFPs, RPK/PKZ/PKM/ZSU/ZPU machineguns & auto cannons, anti-tank rockets & missiles, mortars, portable multiple launch rocket systems, grenades & launchers, sniper rifles, etc..
AKs are considered male jewelry in Afghanistan (everyday walkabout dress by adult males) and households in Iraq are permitted to own select fire AKs. These legally owned weapons are only rarely seized by US forces conducting operations (in the absence of other incriminating actions, evidence, or significant illegal arms).
The Government of Iraq increasingly sets its own tune and has its own security agenda. I think Secretary Rice's 2A stance (in the USA) is a matter of record...she is on "our" side.
IMHO, when she is refering to arms and militias (specifically the Shiite ones opposed to GOI and Coalition Forces), she is talking about mines, explosives, MANPADs, RPGs, IEDs, EFPs, RPK/PKZ/PKM/ZSU/ZPU machineguns & auto cannons, anti-tank rockets & missiles, mortars, portable multiple launch rocket systems, grenades & launchers, sniper rifles, etc..
AKs are considered male jewelry in Afghanistan (everyday walkabout dress by adult males) and households in Iraq are permitted to own select fire AKs. These legally owned weapons are only rarely seized by US forces conducting operations (in the absence of other incriminating actions, evidence, or significant illegal arms).
The Government of Iraq increasingly sets its own tune and has its own security agenda. I think Secretary Rice's 2A stance (in the USA) is a matter of record...she is on "our" side.
My issue with her is it doesn't matter what she thinks herself, I question if she even does. She is a "yes man" put in place by the administration. Does anyone think the administration would like the right to regulate what arms may be owned and by whom even in the USA? Given their attitude on other aspects of the COTUS I think the answer is clear. It is after all part of "the war on terror" and "to protect our freedom."