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: 10905
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
Comments (1-29) not displayed.
.
.
.
#30. To: Gatlin (#14)
Bosh. Adams wrote in March, 1776 prior to the Declaration. Obviously, Adams was advocating the disarming of "notorious" militant Tories who intended to aid the Tory cause and fight against American independence. In the era of the Founders and early republic, the colonies/states/feds had a lot more trouble from forcing colonists to buy weapons (swords at minimum, muskets by custom) than in seizing weapons from Tories. Of course, the most militant Tories abandoned the colonies and mostly fled to Toronto early on so they didn't cause much problem in practice.
I am not discussing every revolution and civil war in history. I am saying that the Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to take up arms agains the government. I don't understand why you don't see that.
So, you do admit there “obviously” was gun confiscation by the “government.” That was my point.
Stick... stick... I do WHAT I want to and I do it WHEN I want to do it. You are dismissed.. I will ping you when I have something to say to you.
I don't understand why you don't see that. And I am saying that no sovereign government in history has ever granted a right to armed rebellion. So you are mostly bleating a truism, not making some profound point as you seem to imagine. It's the first law, unwritten, of any government that they will enforce their laws and the recognized lawful regime with force of arms against any and all citizens who rebel (or merely refuse to obey the laws when the police/army insist). Any ruling entity who did not do that is not a sovereign government because the first business of government is always to enforce its laws and protect itself from external and internal threats via its armed forces and police.
Adams recommended it to the various pre-Revolutionary committees in the various colonies. You haven't provided any information on just how many weapons were seized during this period of rising Revolutionary sentiment. And it was practical revolutionary policy. The rebel colonists did not want their Tory-sympathizing fellow-colonists shooting them in the back while the rebel colonists were busy shooting Redcoats in the back from cover in the local woods. You may recall how bitterly the British complained over the cowardly colonists shooting at them from concealment. BTW, it was illegal for the Founders to rebel against their lawful monarch, nutty George III, or the authority of the English parliament. The English would have hung the lot of them if they could have laid their hands on the Founders.
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.
Yup. Gatlin would have been a Redcoat in 1775. He's taken a disturbing position that ALL and any gubmint can do as they please without answering to anyone. And damn The Citizenry. The Commander appears to be advocating Totalitarianism in the democratic Republic of the United States of America. It's just a silly argument. I don't understand why you don't see that. He can't see it because he doesn't want to see it. OR just plain agrees with the USA transforming in a Totalitarian gubmint. Just like all the "good Germans" in 1940 or Stalinists.
Great, legit questions... He's a goose-stepping Totalitarian Statist. Anti-Constitution. At least it's on record. No further use in engaging.
You've come up empty, Commander. Ping me when you've become an actual American patriot.
I found it quite interesting that Thomas Jefferson wrote into his 1775 draft of the Virginia Constitution, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Then after giving it some thought, he added,“within his own lands or tenements.” It looks like old TJ gave some very serious consideration that there were to be some limitations on the individual’s right to gun ownership.
You do know that the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) was not ratified until 1791, don't you Parsons? Having been approved by the requisite three-fourths of the several states, there being 14 States in the Union at the time (as Vermont had been admitted into the Union on March 4, 1791),the ratification of Articles Three through Twelve was completed and they became Amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution. President Washington informed Congress of this on December 30, 1791 That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky) I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Naw, just a Tory. Perhaps planning to relocate to that vile den of slavish monarchists, Toronto. LOL I guess Gatlin hasn't told us yet if he would have been a rebel or a Tory during the Revolutionary War. It is a concrete example of whether man possesses an innate right to overthrow the lawful established government. So, Gatlin, would you have been a rebel American or a royalist Tory during the American Revolution?
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. ; )
It looks like old TJ gave some very serious consideration that there were to be some limitations on the individual’s right to gun ownership. NEWSFLASH: And all that matter is the US Constitution AND ITS CLEAR INTENT. Thomas Jefferson was one of MANY participants and contributors of the US Constitution. But like most rabid Progs and Statists, you seem to believe Jefferson was the only Founder.
Heh... But before busting that move to Canada (or back onto King Georges lap), I'd assume he might have stuck around just long enough to become a Tory informant....then bolted when he felt the heat.
Nice counter...
I never denied that hotbeds of Tory royalists were not disarmed. No more than I would deny that the first actions of the Revolution involved the Redcoats marching by night to try to seize the weapons at rebel armories, for which they paid dearly. But how many were disarmed in these Tory hotbeds? These accounts don't tell us. Was it a handful? Dozens? Hundreds? It does make a difference in how much weight we should assign to this. Keep in mind that espionage is known to have exercised considerable, if not decisive, influence in the outcome of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW I, WW II, etc. So our intrepid rebel colonial Founders would naturally act against traitors, traitors like Benedict Arnold, the West Point commander and American traitor. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Should he have remained armed?
I would think there's enough weapons circulated that it wouldn't be worth the risk of concealing something as big as a workshop and machinery capable of making a firearm. I'd think bombs and explosives would be the hot item for underground manufacturing. Nothing would be safe tho. People on your side of the fight would rob your weapons if given the chance. I'd most likely be a rogue combatant... protecting just my own family and killing the parts of my family that endanger my agenda or are dead weight. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Should he have remained armed? Well played. I anticipate an interesting answer (if at all.) If the Commander wants to engage in Red Herrings, I'm betting on you. ;-)
You really should edit that comment. Not everything has to be shared.
On which "side" would that be? Has that been defined? I'm pretty sure everyone here would batten down the hatches and protect their own in such a case.
The American side! Isn't it kind of silly to discuss the idea of the Right engaging the Left in America with their existing home arsenals? The Left would show up with a few million marginal guns. The Right would show up with 400 million guns and tens of millions of people who know how to use them. The only plausible civil war scenario in America is government doing some massive gun confiscation scheme as part of a general hard-Left takeover. Like if someone like Bernie Sanders but more extreme became prez with a 60-vote Dem Senate and a House majority. But not Sanders himself. He'd know better, even though he knows very little in general.
Had I been there at the time, it would have been General Beauregard Gatlin in this painting and not old George. BTW: The name Beauregard means "beautiful gaze".
I always thought Washington looked like he had indigestion or an itch in that painting. So did many of those semi-creepy paintings of Napoleon back in the day. It was Thing for painters, apparently.
The Founding Fathers had the “right” to disarm anyone they desired to. And they did selectively disarm people they felt would or did oppose them. But any mention of the word “disarm” and the fanatics will now into convulsions. No, I am never in favor of disarming. I only wanted to point out a lesson in history about the Founding Fathers disarming people to the ignorant. That of course does not include you … :)
I think it was constipation. Eating cherries will do that so some people. Urban legend has it….that is why he cut down that damn tree.
It has been fun. But I am now going to exercise my right to leave you. Take care of the small stuff from the featherweights …
Have a good day, Beauregard.
I'd bet on some type of massive disaster happening, with resulting citizen unrest/killing, --- triggering a stupid govt attempt to stop the chaos by gun confiscation, instead of relief efforts.. --- At that point, a civil war would likely erupt.. It started to happen in New Orleans...
That was kinda my point. ALL sides will steal weapons. The government will always try to confiscate weapons of its opposition. The heartbreaker is, everyone against the government will steal from each other too. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Like most she fails in the comparison. It's not a matter of guns as we all know but of who has them. We used to be a God fearing society which for the most part knew killing was wrong and most held to a divine reckoning beyond this life. Not to mention a temporal punishment of execution for killing others. The problem is we now live in a nihilistic society who has access to guns.
You do know that I never once mentioned the Second Amendment anywhere In my post, don’t you? Of course you do and there is absolutely no reason for you to respond to me with such an irrelevant question that has noting to do with George Washington confiscating weapons. But to answer you stupid question: Yes, I knew that. When it comes to gun control, argue whatever position you want. But you should remember to always keep the Founders out of it. It is inconsistent with their governing record to believe that they were supporters of unrestricted private firearms. It may surprise you ro learn that the state of New Hampshire saw fit to propose an amendment to give the government full permission to take guns from citizens who “are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” Those early lawmakers were so concerned that they decided the “right to bear arms” would cease if those arms were taken up against our "we the people" government. Remember I mentioned the Whiskey Rebellion in an earlier post where armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed and George Washington’s administration tyrannical government imposing taxes on of all things, whiskey. Well, President Washington called up 13,000 militia men into the army and Washington personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania. So much for any argument that the Second Amendment is the right to have guns to overthrow the oppressive US government. Eh?
Beauregard has returned.
-- in rebellion to the government of the USA, the gov't acting under constitutional principles, --- can have weapons confiscated certainly. And every example you quoted, they were in actual rebellion, only the whiskey tax of dubious consirutinality. As usual gatlin is on the wrong side of a constitutional fence.
"From each according to their ability to each according to their need" Always sounds so awesome.... to the L.I.F.E.R. free loader parasites riding the gravy train being pulled by, not them.
Au contraire, mon ami. (A bit of French lingo there to demonstrate my fondness for little froggies.) The original intent of the second amendment was to offer citizens the opportunity to avoid the type of tyrannical rule that they came to America to escape. This modern government has become so huge and onerous it's fast becoming a threat to all citizens, We hope that a president Trump can stick a sword in the dirigible and deflate it. Political and social unrest can cause governmental response and unforeseen consequences that impugn the rights of individuals. So, your thinking aobut the purpose and use of the Second Amendment is somewhat skewed. To protect themselves from a government that, however inadvertently, no longer protects them or, even worse, attempts to persecute them, citizens must be able to maintain their own arms. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
The elite pansies (and lesbians, in this case)that we allow to rule and ruin our lives and country have their own interpretations. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Like Hillary, we assume Condo has one of these. Who knows she may have sprouted a penis. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Comments (71 - 144) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd 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.
Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies, against the hostile Attempts of the British Fleets and Armies, and to apply the Arms taken from such Persons in each respective Colony, in the first place, to the Arming the continental Troops raised in said Colony, in the next, to the arming such Troops as are raised by the Colony for its own defence, and the Residue to be applied to the arming the Associators; that the Arms when taken be appraised by indifferent Persons, and such as are applied to the Arming the Continental Troops, be paid for by the Congress and the Residue by the respective Assemblies, Conventions, or Councils or Committees of Safety.
#31. To: Tooconservative (#28)
(Edited)
By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#30)
Obviously, Adams was advocating the disarming of "notorious" militant Tories who intended to aid the Tory cause and fight against American independence.
#33. To: Liberator (#23)
Tick... tick....
#34. To: Gatlin (#31)
I am saying that the Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to take up arms agains the government.
#35. To: Gatlin (#32)
(Edited)
So, you do admit there “obviously” was gun confiscation by the “government.”
#36. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#25)
Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?
#37. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#28)
By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal.
#38. To: Tooconservative (#35)
George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York. The impoundments occurred without trial, though the Army did provide receipts, which were redeemable for (nearly worthless) Continental currency. Meanwhile, local militias in New Jersey confiscated arms and livestock from people living along the Jersey shoreline. In one county, the militia was called out specifically to confiscate guns from African-Americans, both free and slave. These were not actions taken against a handful of traitors, but large actions against neighborhoods of people. Guns were confiscated from individuals without due process. Firearms were treated similarly to other kinds of private property impounded for the war effort. In a region under British invasion, the need to win a war trumped individual property rights—including the right to own a gun. 1
#39. To: Deckard (#24)
#40. To: Gatlin (#33)
#41. To: All (#38)
#42. To: Gatlin (#38)
George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#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.
#44. To: Liberator, Gatlin (#37)
Yup. Gatlin would have been a Redcoat in 1775.
#45. To: GrandIsland (#43)
That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky)
#46. To: Gatlin (#41)
I found it quite interesting that Thomas Jefferson wrote into his 1775 draft of the Virginia Constitution...
#47. To: Tooconservative (#44)
Naw, just a Tory. Perhaps planning to relocate to that vile den of slavish monarchists, Toronto. LOL
#48. To: Deckard (#42)
You do know that the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) was not ratified until 1791, don't you Parsons?
#49. To: Gatlin, Liberator (#38)
George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.
#50. To: Tooconservative (#45)
#51. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#49)
So our intrepid rebel colonial Founders would naturally act against traitors, traitors like Benedict Arnold, the West Point commander and American traitor.
#52. To: GrandIsland (#50)
#53. To: GrandIsland, Tooconservative (#50)
(Edited)
People on your side of the fight would rob your weapons if given the chance. I'd most likely be a rogue combatant... protecting just my own family and killing the parts of my family that endanger my agenda or are dead weight.
#54. To: Liberator (#53)
On which "side" would that be? Has that been defined?
#55. To: Tooconservative (#44)
It is a concrete example of whether man possesses an innate right to overthrow the lawful established government.
Innate right? By one definition of the word “innate”....I don’t believe that a person is born with “that” type of ability. However, I do believe that in America we do have the lawful established means to make a complete overhaul of our government. So, Gatlin, would you have been a rebel American or a royalist Tory during the American Revolution?
Oh, no question about it. 
#56. To: Gatlin (#55)
Had I been there at the time, it would have been General Beauregard Gatlin in this painting and not old George.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#49)
#58. To: Tooconservative (#56)
#59. To: Tooconservative (#56)
#60. To: Gatlin (#59)
#61. To: Tooconservative (#54)
The only plausible civil war scenario in America is government doing some massive gun confiscation scheme as part of a general hard-Left takeover.
#62. To: Liberator (#53)
On which "side" would that be?
#63. To: IbJensen (#0)
“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.”
#64. To: Deckard (#42)
(Edited)
You do know that the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) was not ratified until 1791, don't you Parsons?
George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.
General George Washington’s first action in 1776 was to confiscate ALL the guns from the private citizens in Queens County, New York. These guns were taken from the civilians by the ARMY without due process and no legal authority. Washington simply ordered members of the army in to take the weapons and provide receipts. Which by the way, were redeemable for the nealy worthless Continental currency. Not only did the army take the guns, they also took livestock from people living all along the Jersey shoreline. In one particular county, the army was called out specifically to confiscate guns from African-Americans, both free and slave. These were no actions taken against a handful of traitors or British sympathizers....these were full-scale door-to-door actions against entire neighborhoods of people.
Since you injected the Second Amendment into the discussion, I will no address that.
#65. To: Tooconservative (#60)
#66. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL, --- on the wrong side of a constitutional fence (#64)
---- citizens who “are or have been in Actual Rebellion ---
#67. To: IbJensen (#1)
(Edited)
the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
#68. To: Gatlin (#10)
the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd.
#69. To: misterwhite (#8)
Why did the founders write the second amendment, Ms. Rice.....
#70. To: GrandIsland (#3)
because she was a potato, with a vagina.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]