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: 10808
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 # 43.
#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.
That is very true
Think of all the machinists and gunsmiths in this country who have the knowledge and machine tools to produce, in short order, highly reliable shear kits for a wide variety of weapons. And about 0% of those gunsmiths would be on the lib side. That's before you even start in on people with skills using modern CNC milling machines and 3d printing and what they could do. If Civil War II ever comes, there won't be any lack of unofficial full-auto weapons. But no one would be handing out the truckloads of ammo to every asshole who had full-auto. They'd tell them, like they do in any modern military, to practice firing in single-shot and 2-round bursts or 3-round bursts. Spray-n-pray is not encouraged by any modern military.
That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky)
#45. To: GrandIsland (#43)
I wonder how many people with the required gunsmithing skills and machine tools are out there. Has to be at least a half-million, perhaps more. And modern computerized tools could produce millions of shere kits in very short order. Like in a few days. You'd only need a few guys in a high-end manufacturing facility or at one of dozens of gun/accessory manufacturers. Not that I've ever thought about it much. I'd better stop before you feel the sudden urge to scope out your lines of sight from the rooftop. ; )
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.
#26. To: Gatlin (#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.
#27. To: GrandIsland, Gatlin, sneakypete (#26)
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.
#43. To: Tooconservative (#27)
If Civil War II ever comes, there won't be any lack of unofficial full-auto weapons. But no one would be handing out the truckloads of ammo to every asshole who had full-auto.
Replies to Comment # 43. That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 43.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]