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: 10810
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 # 71.
#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.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self- defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
#75. To: A K A Stone (#71)
While I totally agree with the sentiments expressed by Alexander Hamilton here, Alexander Hamilton however did not write this statement into the Second Amendment with the intent that the Second Amendment would be as an instrument of insurrection against the our government. In fact, Alexander Hamilton did not even write the Second Amendment. James Madison drafted it, but it was hardly his idea. Whose idea was it? While opinions can be freely expressed, it needs to be remembered that the Supreme Court of the United States is the highest tribunal in this great Nation for all cases and controversies that arise about the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of the Constitution and thereby functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. You get to have an opinion, but that is all you get to have….and this is not an opinion. So saying the Second Amendment was written for the Americans to take up arms against our government is purely opinionated bullshit. George Washington himself proved this to be true when 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. Thank you for your post.
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.
#71. To: Gatlin (#14)
Replies to Comment # 71. If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self- defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Yes indeed, the Federalist No. 28 is an essay attributed to Alexander Hamilton, the twenty-eighth of The Federalist Papers. It was published on December 26, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius. (I wonder why he did not use his own name, but felt compelled to use a pseudonym…any idea?) "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." appears in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. These Protestants would be the group from which the Pilgrims came, who departed England for the New World in 1620 after years of persecution by the English crown. Seventy years later, it was becoming appreciated that they had a right to not be disarmed by the king or queen. It is believed that when it was written, the English didn't see it as granting any right, rather seeking to preserve a 'natural' right that all humans have, which is to be able to defend themselves from attack by aggressors.
I read where some have the opinion that the Second Amendment was written to give the right to take up arms against our government….but we must all come to realize, if we already don’t already, that opinions are like assholes….everybody has one.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 71.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]