LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Condoleezza Rice says US needs to consider Second Amendment's place in 'modern world'
Source:
Fox News
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... nts-place-in-modern-world.html
Published: Feb 25, 2018
Author: Amy Lieu
Post Date: 2018-02-25 07:27:02 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 15964
Comments: 144
This month's massacre in Parkland, Fla., seems like a key moment in the nation's ongoing debate about the Second Amendment, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during a radio interview Friday. “I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world,” Rice told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday. “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.” More specifically, Rice said weapons like the AR-15 rifle that authorities say shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz, 19, used to kill 17 students and teachers Feb. 14, shouldn't be available to civilians, the Washington Times reported. NIKOLAS CRUZ CHARGED IN FLORIDA SCHOOL SHOOTING But Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, made clear that she remains a believer in the Second Amendment. “We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First,” she said, adding that she considers the first two amendments to the Constitution to be “indivisible.” “We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First.” - Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. secretary of state Hewitt then asked if Rice -- being an educator herself as a political science professor at Stanford University -- supports the idea of teachers carrying guns as a deterrent to potential campus shootings. Rice said she doesn’t think that is “going to be the answer,” the Washington Times reported. “I don’t really like the idea, frankly, of a gun in my classroom,” she said. Rather, she supports looking to law enforcement and guards as ways for protection. Rice, 63, was exposed to senseless violence at an early age, having grown up in Birmingham, Ala., where the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in 1963 resulted in the deaths of four young girls. She has written and spoken frequently about the impression the horrific event made on her. She told Hewitt that despite her reservations about weapons in the classroom, the proposal merited a serious discussion. (Watch video at link) Poster Comment: “Modern world” Same modern world pissing away their freedom left and right? No thanks Bush Globalist Harpy. The Second Amendment is to provide protection against a hungry, immense, evil and bankrupt government!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#10. To: IbJensen (#0)
You sound like Bernie Sanders or Hillary.
If it were the case that citizens could take up arms and go to war against the government, then we wouldn't have also included treason in the United States Constitution. We basically said if you take arms up against the government, we're going to knock your block off. And that's what the early presidents ended up doing in Shays' Rebellion Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government and anyone who argues that it does really has no understanding the true nature of that amendment. And as far as “gun control”….it is a fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed. “What was good for the goose is good for the gander?” Oh, NO! Since you disagreed with my statement, then show me any legal authority for citizens to take up arms against the government.
No one disagrees with that statement. However - the Second Amendment exists precisely in the case that government "goes rogue" and becomes a dictatorship. I'm sure even you would agree with that, right? The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government... Once again - you're wrong. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Rogue governments are rife throughout history. CONSENSUS: The American Founders agreed on the above mechanism that repels the tyranny of a rogue gubmint and re-secures the Rights endowed BY OUR CREATOR in a worst case scenario. Here is the other stark point that cannot be denied: In other words, the "government" IS created BY The People, FOR The People as OUR representatives. Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?
The answer is: Yes. And if individuals in the government do no uphold the US Constitution and their oath of office, then the US Constitution spells out ways they will be removed and replaced. But nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties. Can you? The discussion here is that the Second Amendment does not allow citizens to take up arms against the government. If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.
#26. To: Gatlin (#25)
That is very true
By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal. It's just a silly argument. I don't understand why you don't see that.
That is really a silly question to ask…but I will still answer it anyway. Thanks for answering the bell, but no, it is NOT a "silly question" to ask given your silly assertions, which are LIGHT YEARS off the mark o the actual issue. If individuals in the government do no uphold the US Constitution and their oath of office, then the US Constitution spells out ways they will be removed and replaced. ALREADY happened. NOT the case. There has been NO constitutional enforcement of those who've BLATANTLY and often routinely violated their oaths while in office. Next... Nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties. Can you? No I can't. Simply because NO ONE has made anywhere NEAR your breathless hyperbolic assertion. Moreover, gubmint officials have been and are currently ACTIVELY failing to "carry out their [constitutional] duties." CASE AND POINT: California's State gubmint and judiciary both in the past and actively are ignoring and violating feral law on the issue of preventing ICE officials from carrying out THEIR constitutional duties and oath of office in removing Illegal Invaders. Then there are countless cities and towns across America establishing what are illegal "Sanctuary Cities." President Trump's federal enforcement of the US Constitution are being ignored by Democrats all levels of state and local government over the country. WITH IMPUNITY. Any so-called "rebellion" against this government has been openly declared by high standing members of the Democrat Party. You may have heard of it; They call themselves "The Resistance." It has been exposed to have found its way into the bowels of the Deep State and DNC via active saboteurs. NOW WHAT TO DO, Commander Gatlin?? The discussion here is that the Second Amendment does not allow citizens to take up arms against the government. Once again you've got it wrong and created a strawman. The discussion here is over-lapping. But mostly about the clear intent of the Founders (as Deckard quotes from the Founders) with respect to the Rights of the citizenry to repel a rogue governance and tyranny via the Second Amendment. The American Founders agreed on a mechanism -- guaranteed by 2A rights -- that repels tyranny facilitated by a rogue gubmint that re-secures citizenry rights as well as liberty and freedom endowed BY OUR CREATOR in a worst case scenario. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOUNDERS? Or do you dismiss the notion of a "rogue, tyrannical government" as even possible? If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize. On this point we agree. ALTHOUGH the "vast majority of Americans" are never going to agree to an "armed rebellion" or ANY crusade, so the point is moot, thus we circle back to THE original question and issue of the intent and meaning AND rights as written in the Founders' 2A.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest The Second Amendment is to provide protection against....government!
The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.
#11. To: Gatlin (#10)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#11)
You sound like Bernie Sanders or Hillary.
Name calling is for a juvenile. I am expressing my OWN conclusion. I do not believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to take up arms against the government and overthrow it. The idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane.
#17. To: Gatlin (#14)
I do not believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to take up arms against the government and overthrow it
#20. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Gatlin (#17)
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
#25. To: Liberator (#20)
Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?
Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?
That is really a silly question to ask…but I will still answer it anyway.
Replies to Comment # 25. If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.
#28. To: Gatlin (#25)
But nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties.
#36. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#25)
Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]