Allen wrote (in part):
What really struck me about Rice's statement that
democracy requires "one authority that is armed"
The full quote from the article was:
"there can be only one authority in a country,
and in a democracy there can be only one authority
and one authority that is armed."
My reading of her quote is a bit different than Allen's. I do not read her
statement as saying that militia's and incompatible with democracy. But
that for a democracy to function, there can only be one authority (i.e.,
government) that is armed -- the opposing system being multiple _competing_
organizations claiming civil enforcement powers. Would an armed militia
that is standing ready to serve the country (as the American militia was
conceived as being in service to the union {even if said union needed to
have its powers forcefully restrained}) be objectionable from her quote? Or
local militias worried about local enforcement and protection?
But, I have picked a nit here. In the rush of diplomatic positioning, words
are occasionally used in haste. As long as Rice/Bush are not calling for
disarming the populace (and as long as the Lebanese "militia" is composed of
that populace), her quote may well stand as viable.
-----------------
Guy Smith
Author, Gun Facts
www.GunFacts.info
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
