Molon Labe
Member
Like the militia at Concord?
I mean this with all seriousness and due respect, Jeff: I really really believe you would have been a loyalist during our War of Independence, and would have fought against the rebelling colonists.
Strange comments from Rice re:"militia" role
- Thread starter K-Romulus
- Start date
- Status
I mean this with all seriousness and due respect, Jeff: I really really believe you would have been a loyalist during our War of Independence, and would have fought against the rebelling colonists.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Maybe if you read beyond just the portion you quoted out of context you would have a better understanding of what Jeff said?
Or were you contending that an effective government involves armed groups shooting each other instead of deciding things at the ballot box?
Or were you contending that an effective government involves armed groups shooting each other instead of deciding things at the ballot box?
RealGun
Member
Rice was actually dignifying these armed groups by calling them militias. I think of a militia as needed to protect, defend, repel, keep or restore the peace. These guys are doing none of that, acting as revolutionaries, Muslim radicals with guns. Not only are they not the proper armed force of Iraq, but they are the enemy, certainly criminals.
"Like the militia at Concord?"
And what do you think the militia at Concord was doing?
Rebelling against a government.
Try reading just the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
The colonisits new exactly what they were doing.
Starting a war.
What do you think the outcome would have been if instead of banding together the various colonies and groups had splintered into factions?
The colonists managed to come together despite their differnces (mostly regional) to form a single force under a single command.
And what do you think the militia at Concord was doing?
Rebelling against a government.
Try reading just the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
The colonisits new exactly what they were doing.
Starting a war.
What do you think the outcome would have been if instead of banding together the various colonies and groups had splintered into factions?
The colonists managed to come together despite their differnces (mostly regional) to form a single force under a single command.
RealGun
Member
Actually a standing, trained army quickly displaced the rag tag militias.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
The British were trying to create and maintain such a monopoly by disarming the colonists at Lexington and Concord. The Weimar Republic also established such a monopoly.
Read the Federalist no. 46 to see what the Founding Fathers thought of the State having a monopoly of force. The express purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent the state from having such a monopoly.
Please point me to the Federalist Paper where the founders advocated armed political parties. The situation in Iraq where there are various armed factions determined to control their areas of influence by force of arms is nothing like we have ever experienced in this country.
The situtation in Iraq is nothing like the American revolution. Imagine that the militas of the 13 colonies fought with each other and the continental army. Imagine the Virginia milita attacking the North Carolina delgation to the Continental Congress on the way to Philidelphia. Imagine the federalists and anti federalists killing each other instead of debating what's to be in the constitution. Then you will have a better perspective on what Dr. Rice has said.
All of the various factions were loyal to the central government, the continental congress. That's not the case in Iraq. In Iraq the various armed factions are loyal only to themselves. That's why Dr. Rice made that statement.
If you think you can have an armed political party in the US, I suggest you look up Presser v. Illinois. It's not exactly a new decision.
Jeff
The situtation in Iraq is nothing like the American revolution. Imagine that the militas of the 13 colonies fought with each other and the continental army. Imagine the Virginia milita attacking the North Carolina delgation to the Continental Congress on the way to Philidelphia. Imagine the federalists and anti federalists killing each other instead of debating what's to be in the constitution. Then you will have a better perspective on what Dr. Rice has said.
All of the various factions were loyal to the central government, the continental congress. That's not the case in Iraq. In Iraq the various armed factions are loyal only to themselves. That's why Dr. Rice made that statement.
If you think you can have an armed political party in the US, I suggest you look up Presser v. Illinois. It's not exactly a new decision.
Jeff
CAnnoneer
Member
I think Rice should be asked exactly what she meant. If journalists had any balls left, she'd be shelled with questions at her next public appearance exactly because of the possible unconstitutionality involved. All she needs to say is she did not mean it that way. Why is this so much to ask?
If anything, we should stimulate tough questions and tough discussions. Get politicians on the record on as many issues as possible BEFORE they run for office. Imagine the what if's if somebody had a good long heart-to-heart with GWB on national TV BEFORE the primaries in 2000. Such things should be required in this day and age of consummate weasels and spinmeisters. Let's take full advantage of modern audio-visual recording technology!
If anything, we should stimulate tough questions and tough discussions. Get politicians on the record on as many issues as possible BEFORE they run for office. Imagine the what if's if somebody had a good long heart-to-heart with GWB on national TV BEFORE the primaries in 2000. Such things should be required in this day and age of consummate weasels and spinmeisters. Let's take full advantage of modern audio-visual recording technology!
Molon Labe
Member
(deleted)
Something odd about "armed political parties" or "groups". Since just about anyone that has a particular point of view about anything is going to support or associate themselves with one or another "political party". So reading between the lines here I think the pressure is on to disarm Iraqis in general.
When it comes down to brass tacks; unless each party has an official and verifable list of "members" - or they all wear some kind of unique and exclusive lapel pin - who is going to receive that great monopoly stick of state power and decide whether this or that person can own and carry a firearm?
-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
When it comes down to brass tacks; unless each party has an official and verifable list of "members" - or they all wear some kind of unique and exclusive lapel pin - who is going to receive that great monopoly stick of state power and decide whether this or that person can own and carry a firearm?
-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
LoadAmmo
Member
How dare you criticize Rice, you must be a racist bigot neo-Nazi skinhead from Northern Idaho.
Just kidding...
But really, this administration is the most fascist, communistic scum sucking group of thugs that make Klinton and his cronies look like puppy dogs.
Let's just pray there's not another false flag terror attack that gives them an excuse for overt Dictatorship
Just kidding...
But really, this administration is the most fascist, communistic scum sucking group of thugs that make Klinton and his cronies look like puppy dogs.
Let's just pray there's not another false flag terror attack that gives them an excuse for overt Dictatorship
RealGun
Member
Who did you vote for in the last Presidential election, or aren't you old enough?
LoadAmmo
Member
I'm old enough to realize it doesn't make a dimes difference in the long run.
YES it's great the AWB expired, that's our only victory and a great one. But what Bush has done is unforgivable.
I bet you don't think the Republicans will sell us out on Immigration either will ya?
Both parties are filled to the brim with Treasonous Traitors.
Those who can think for themselves and don't let the talking heads on television think for them know the only solution is eventual revolution - which is a couple decades in the making...
Or you can just keep voting your way into slavery, it's your choice.
YES it's great the AWB expired, that's our only victory and a great one. But what Bush has done is unforgivable.
I bet you don't think the Republicans will sell us out on Immigration either will ya?
Both parties are filled to the brim with Treasonous Traitors.
Those who can think for themselves and don't let the talking heads on television think for them know the only solution is eventual revolution - which is a couple decades in the making...
Or you can just keep voting your way into slavery, it's your choice.
longeyes
member
All of which can be wiped away with one draconian scrawl of The Pen.
"They" are waiting, that's all, waiting.
beerslurpy
member
I disagree with c_yeager.
Rice exposed the fact that we are trying to subdue Iraq. Subjegation and freedom are mutually exclusive goals. We want Iraqis to be free to the extent that they will not use that freedom to work against American interests.
Similarly, in America, our freedom is allowed to manifest itself in ways that are largely irrelevant. But god forbid populism happens to turn against the interests of big business or big government. Then we start to hear politicians decrying the recklessness of the electorate.
Ultimately the Iraqis will see that their interests are being subverted to those of the US and will either elect leaders that favor Iraqi interests OR the US will impose US friendly leaders upon the iraqi people. Imposed leaders will ultimately be unpopular and have to resort to anti-democratic means to retain power.
Rice exposed the fact that we are trying to subdue Iraq. Subjegation and freedom are mutually exclusive goals. We want Iraqis to be free to the extent that they will not use that freedom to work against American interests.
Similarly, in America, our freedom is allowed to manifest itself in ways that are largely irrelevant. But god forbid populism happens to turn against the interests of big business or big government. Then we start to hear politicians decrying the recklessness of the electorate.
Ultimately the Iraqis will see that their interests are being subverted to those of the US and will either elect leaders that favor Iraqi interests OR the US will impose US friendly leaders upon the iraqi people. Imposed leaders will ultimately be unpopular and have to resort to anti-democratic means to retain power.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I mentioned this elsewhere online, but my take on the matter is that the context provides the critical illumination with which to interpret these comments.
The police that are currently fielded are sectarian and infiltrated. As such, they do not carry the universal public trust and respect that is necessary for a police force to carry out their duty of creating and preserving the public peace.
She's pissed that the non sectarian forces that are not tainted and _could_ gain and retain the public trust are not being fielded.
As a result of this, there is a power vacuum created by the general failure to create the public peace. In this context, the middle eastern version of the Hatfields and McCoys play out their centuries old blood feud.
I think Rice is more interested in establishing a strong, fair and universally respected civil police than in repudiating anything, or disarming anyone.
I would also refer members to many posts that took place during Al-Sadr's brief reign in the graveyard, and the Fallujah insurgency, concerning the abuse of the term "militia" to describe quasi organized para military sectarian/partisan thuggery.
A true militia serves the common defense, the common good, and the cause of justice for all. An armed group that serves anything less is not a true militia, it is a degenerate case.
I'm inclined to believe she chose her words poorly. I see this as more about establishing bona fide justice through a strong and impartial civil mechanism than as a statement of statism.
Why do we respect the Texas Rangers?
They're strong. They're fair. They're not corrupt. They serve the peace, the common good, and the cause of justice for all.
The police that are currently fielded are sectarian and infiltrated. As such, they do not carry the universal public trust and respect that is necessary for a police force to carry out their duty of creating and preserving the public peace.
She's pissed that the non sectarian forces that are not tainted and _could_ gain and retain the public trust are not being fielded.
As a result of this, there is a power vacuum created by the general failure to create the public peace. In this context, the middle eastern version of the Hatfields and McCoys play out their centuries old blood feud.
I think Rice is more interested in establishing a strong, fair and universally respected civil police than in repudiating anything, or disarming anyone.
I would also refer members to many posts that took place during Al-Sadr's brief reign in the graveyard, and the Fallujah insurgency, concerning the abuse of the term "militia" to describe quasi organized para military sectarian/partisan thuggery.
A true militia serves the common defense, the common good, and the cause of justice for all. An armed group that serves anything less is not a true militia, it is a degenerate case.
I'm inclined to believe she chose her words poorly. I see this as more about establishing bona fide justice through a strong and impartial civil mechanism than as a statement of statism.
Why do we respect the Texas Rangers?
They're strong. They're fair. They're not corrupt. They serve the peace, the common good, and the cause of justice for all.
beerslurpy
member
Geek, I disagree.
One of the main purposes of a militia is to prevent authorities from controlling local groups through force. That the local militia would take up arms against a force it perceives as acting against its interests is not really inconsistent with the idea of a militia. It forces "proper authorities" to work out a compromise with that local group instead of mounting a costly campaign to coerce them. This is more of a design feature than a bug. *marks As Designed and closes*
This is one of the hazards inherent in dissolving a strong central government- strong central governments allow hostile groups to cohabitate without friction, but when you take that away, chaos results because there are no institutional means for groups to resolve their differences without breaking out the ammo.
One of the main purposes of a militia is to prevent authorities from controlling local groups through force. That the local militia would take up arms against a force it perceives as acting against its interests is not really inconsistent with the idea of a militia. It forces "proper authorities" to work out a compromise with that local group instead of mounting a costly campaign to coerce them. This is more of a design feature than a bug. *marks As Designed and closes*
This is one of the hazards inherent in dissolving a strong central government- strong central governments allow hostile groups to cohabitate without friction, but when you take that away, chaos results because there are no institutional means for groups to resolve their differences without breaking out the ammo.
DKSuddeth
Member
Dr. Rice isn't any different than anybody else in the government. The government is not our friend and seeks to disarm us, divide us, and conquer us as quietly as possible.
progunner1957
member
I don't think she meant that applies to the U.S.
Here is what she said in reference to our right to arms here in the United States:
That's fine - as long as she was referring to Iraq and not the United States, which I believe she was.
Here is what she said in reference to our right to arms here in the United States:
progunner1957
member
Iraq militias = apples; U.S. militias at Concord = oranges. Invalid compairson...
In other words, they were rebelling against an illegitimate and unlawful government - which means that their rebellion was both legitimate and lawful.
Rebelling against a government that they did not elect and did not want; rebelling against a government that followed them here from Britan to try to establish arbitrary and oppressive rule over the colonists against their will.
In other words, they were rebelling against an illegitimate and unlawful government - which means that their rebellion was both legitimate and lawful.
Roger that!
Johnnybgood
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 206
I would still
Take Condi over Hillary any day!
Take Condi over Hillary any day!
- Status