Condoleezza Rice says US needs to consider Second Amendment's place in 'modern world'

Source: Fox News
Published: Feb 25, 2018
Author: Amy Lieu
Post Date: 2018-02-25 07:27:02 by IbJensen
Views: 24955

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

#51: Liberator    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.

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.

;-)

Liberator posted on 2018-02-25 15:56:27   Reply   Private Reply

#52: Tooconservative    To: GrandIsland (#50)

You really should edit that comment. Not everything has to be shared.

Tooconservative posted on 2018-02-25 15:57:09   Reply   Private Reply

#53: Liberator    To: GrandIsland, Tooconservative (#50)

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.

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.

Liberator posted on 2018-02-25 16:03:12   Reply   Private Reply

#54: Tooconservative    To: Liberator (#53)

On which "side" would that be? Has that been defined?

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.

Tooconservative posted on 2018-02-25 16:13:36   Reply   Private Reply

#55: Gatlin    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.

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".

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-25 16:14:23   Reply   Private Reply

#56: Tooconservative    To: Gatlin (#55)

Had I been there at the time, it would have been General Beauregard Gatlin in this painting and not old George.

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.

Tooconservative posted on 2018-02-25 16:17:14   Reply   Private Reply

#57: Gatlin    To: Tooconservative (#49)

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 … :)

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-25 16:25:23   Reply   Private Reply

#58: Gatlin    To: Tooconservative (#56)

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.

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-25 16:27:47   Reply   Private Reply

#59: Gatlin    To: Tooconservative (#56)

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 …

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-25 16:31:09   Reply   Private Reply

#60: Tooconservative    To: Gatlin (#59)

Have a good day, Beauregard.

Tooconservative posted on 2018-02-25 16:44:42   Reply   Private Reply

#61: tpaine    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.

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...

tpaine posted on 2018-02-25 16:56:37   Reply   Private Reply

#62: GrandIsland    To: Liberator (#53)

On which "side" would that be?

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.

GrandIsland posted on 2018-02-25 17:55:19   Reply   Private Reply

#63: redleghunter    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.”

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.

redleghunter posted on 2018-02-25 18:24:10   Reply   Private Reply

#64: Gatlin    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?

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.

George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.

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.

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.

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?

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-25 20:18:06   Reply   Private Reply

#65: Gatlin    To: Tooconservative (#60)

Beauregard has returned.

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-25 20:19:09   Reply   Private Reply

#66: tpaine    To: Gatlin, Y'ALL, --- on the wrong side of a constitutional fence (#64)

---- citizens who “are or have been in Actual Rebellion ---

-- 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.

tpaine posted on 2018-02-25 21:11:38   Reply   Private Reply

#67: VxH    To: IbJensen (#1)

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.

"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.

VxH posted on 2018-02-25 22:55:58   Reply   Private Reply

#68: IbJensen    To: Gatlin (#10)

the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd.

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.

IbJensen posted on 2018-02-26 07:13:06   Reply   Private Reply

#69: IbJensen    To: misterwhite (#8)

Why did the founders write the second amendment, Ms. Rice.....

The elite pansies (and lesbians, in this case)that we allow to rule and ruin our lives and country have their own interpretations.

IbJensen posted on 2018-02-26 07:16:50   Reply   Private Reply

#70: IbJensen    To: GrandIsland (#3)

because she was a potato, with a vagina.

Like Hillary, we assume Condo has one of these. Who knows she may have sprouted a penis.

IbJensen posted on 2018-02-26 07:18:49   Reply   Private Reply

#71: A K A Stone    To: Gatlin (#14)

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

A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-26 07:45:37   Reply   Private Reply

#72: sneakypete    To: IbJensen (#0)

Says the woman with a CCW permit and armed bodyguards to surround her anytime she leaves her office or home.

sneakypete posted on 2018-02-26 08:55:19   Reply   Private Reply

#73: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#64)

You do know that I never once mentioned the Second Amendment anywhere In my post, don’t you?

You do realize that the 2nd Amendment is the topic of conversation, don't you Parsons?

Deckard posted on 2018-02-26 09:34:23   Reply   Private Reply

#74: Gatlin    To: IbJensen (#68)

the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd.

Au contraire, mon ami. (A bit of French lingo there to demonstrate my fondness for little froggies.)

Bravo…wonderful job with that “French lingo.” You may have found something you do well. Stick with it.
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.
That is very true and while you cannot speak for all Americans when you presumptively used “we”….you can however include me in that hope.
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.
Sorry, but you do not get to decide and dictate what the original intent of the Second Amendment is. Yours is but one of the seemingly endless interpretations of the 27 words in the Second Amendment. You do however have the right to hold and express your pwn opinion. In doing so, it is possible that you have construed your opinion to perfectly match your own personal feelings along with your political desires. Perhaps It would be far wiser to set aside your futile subjective policymaking efforts that has meaning only to you and achieve absolutely no results….then smartly concentrate on electing qualified individuals to represent the American people and replace many of the opinionated and egotistical dumbass bastards now occupying seats in Congress.

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. It’s a stated fact, a fact well worth you understanding and remembering.

Thanks for your post and for taking time to state your personal opinion.

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-26 09:59:00   Reply   Private Reply

#75: Gatlin    To: A K A Stone (#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?)

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?

"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.

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.

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-26 10:34:26   Reply   Private Reply

#76: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#73)

You do know that I never once mentioned the Second Amendment anywhere In my post, don’t you?

You do realize that the 2nd Amendment is the topic of conversation, don't you Parsons?

No I don’t and you need to realize the topic of my conversation was limited to the Founders confiscating guns.

You do realize that you pointed out his was prior to the Second Amendment, don’t you?

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-26 10:41:57   Reply   Private Reply

#77: A K A Stone    To: Gatlin (#75)

The second amendment protects our pre existing right to own and possess arms. Its purpose is to keep us free from tyrants. So it is in case someday we the people can kill the people who would enslave us through government!ent, should that become necessary. It is also so the people can be called up to defend the country against foreign invasion.

If you disagree with me you are a dumb ass.

The whiskey rebelllion wasn't about the right to bear arms.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-26 10:48:47   Reply   Private Reply

#78: IbJensen    To: Gatlin (#74)

You do however have the right to hold and express your pwn opinion.

You are a snide one, Gatlin! (That's snide....not wise!)

IbJensen posted on 2018-02-26 10:58:47   Reply   Private Reply

#79: Deckard    To: A K A Stone, Gatlin, Ib Jensen, sneakypete, Liberator (#77)

The second amendment protects our pre existing right to own and possess arms. Its purpose is to keep us free from tyrants. So it is in case someday we the people can kill the people who would enslave us through government!ent, should that become necessary.

No use trying to reason with that arrogant clown - he's happy being a slave and when the gooberment says you MUST turn in your guns, he will do so with a smile because by golly - the government is god.

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

He should move to Maryland.

Deckard posted on 2018-02-26 11:08:55   Reply   Private Reply

#80: VxH    To: Deckard, hondo68 (#79)

he's happy being a slave and when the gooberment says you MUST turn in your guns

Who'da thunk in 1989, before the Berlin Wall came down, that less than 30 years later we'd have the son-in-law of a card carrying Soviet communist staining the sheets of the White Hut... building walls and pondering thoughts of castrating both the 2nd amendment and the 1st amendment which the 2nd protects.

Well, besides commies like Bill and Hillary Clinton, I mean.

"Donald Trump talked politics with Bill Clinton weeks before launching 2016 bid"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill- clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016- launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html? utm_term=.9ee1408b42d1

VxH posted on 2018-02-26 12:33:41   Reply   Private Reply

#81: sneakypete    To: Gatlin (#75)

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.

All that proves is that Washington was a hypocrite.

sneakypete posted on 2018-02-26 14:29:16   Reply   Private Reply

#82: sneakypete    To: A K A Stone (#77)

The second amendment protects our pre existing right to own and possess arms. I

The Second Amendment RECOGNIZES our pre-existing rights to own and possess arms.

By saying it "protects" it implies the 2nd Amendment can by repealed at convenience.

Yeah,I know. It's semantics and there is only a hairs width of difference between the two words,but I think "recognizes" is a more powerful statement by implying the right existed prior to the formation of our government,and is a natural right.

sneakypete posted on 2018-02-26 14:33:15   Reply   Private Reply

#83: Gatlin    To: A K A Stone (#77)

The second amendment protects our pre existing right to own and possess arms.
I don’t understand the “preexisting” part, but your statement otherwise is factually correct.
Its purpose is to keep us free from tyrants.
Yes, it is.
So it is in case someday we the people can kill the people who would enslave us through government!ent, should that become necessary.
As I said before, if the government ever tries to enslave us….there will be no need for a Second Amendment. All hell will break loose and the “We The People” government will be preserved.

And if as you say, should it become necessary, then the gloriously wonderful Oath Keepers will already be on top of the situation and openly combating the government. This non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders have declared that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.


Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

You can stand at ease.

It is also so the people can be called up to defend the country against foreign invasion.
If our armed forces cannot handle it, then: Yes.
If you disagree with me you are a dumb ass.
I will always respect your right to express your opinion. I can see that you will not respect my opinion and therefore in your eyes, I am a dumb ass.

Good Bless the First Amendment….and those who respect and honor it.

The whiskey rebelllion wasn't about the right to bear arms.
But the Second Amendment was in effect when an armed insurrection was made against the federal government while George Washington was president. The resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution.
Throughout Western Pennsylvania counties, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
The Second Amendment didn’t do shit to protect the Whiskey Rebellion insurrectionists or in any way enable them to have a successful armed protest against the government under President George Washington.


Washington with the Army heading to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

The loud-mouth coward asshole rebels all armed and ready for battle wisely decided to turn tail and ran for home before the arrival of the army. So there was no confrontation and their Second Amendment right proved what? As a result of their misguided efforts about 20 men were arrested. In the next six years, over 175 distillers from Kentucky were convicted of violating the tax law.

Doncha think that these “rebels against government” and all the other loud-mouth cowards who to this day continually puff and espouse bravado in a horrifically bold manner in their effort to show their machismo that is intended only to pump their ego as they try to show boldness to impress or intimidate….are really dumbasses?

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-26 15:10:49   Reply   Private Reply

#84: Gatlin    To: sneakypete (#81)

All that proves is that Washington was a hypocrite.
It would be very tough to find an argument against that ....with respect to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-26 15:13:23   Reply   Private Reply

#85: Gatlin    To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Gatlin, Ib Jensen, sneakypete, Liberator (#79)

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

He should move to Maryland.

That some gross fallacious reasoning. You shouldn’t use faulty inferences in your deductive reasoning.

You are inferring that I believe that “assault weapons” are not protected by the Second Amendment.

It is my opinion that those weapons maliciously labeled “assault weapons” to incite negative reactions are indeed protected by the Second Amendment.

If you have any questions as to my positions on anything...it would be beneficial for you to just ask me.

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-26 15:27:56   Reply   Private Reply

#86: Gatlin    To: IbJensen (#78)

You are a snide one, Gatlin!

Yes, I know…that has been said before and I take no offense in hearing it again.

I fully realize that I have the innate capacity for saying things in an unkind and indirect way when criticizing somebody and pointing out the error of their way or exposing their unpleasant traits.

But don’t be frighten off by that….put on your “big boy” facade and try to dispute my facts when you can.

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-26 15:45:18   Reply   Private Reply

#87: Hondo68    To: VxH, taters coven, Condi Republicans (#80)

Condi Republicans, Taters Coven

"Not a Witch!"

Hondo68 posted on 2018-02-26 16:07:57   Reply   Private Reply

#88: tpaine    To: Y'ALL -- Gatlin can't debate his opinions (#76)

gatlin---- 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.

Gatlins opinion claiming that: --- "saying the Second Amendment was written for the Americans to take up arms against our government is purely opinionated bullshit". --- is purely semantic word-play bullshit itself, --- seeing that everyone here is writing that the first explanatory line of the 2nd explains why the right shall not be infringed.

The milita, the people, --- when no longer living in a free state, --- have a right to take up arms against their oppressive government if it cannot be changed peacefully.

That is the clear intent of the 2nd, and gatlins silly attempt to claim the whiskey rebellion proves otherwise is flawed by the fact that it was about booze taxes, and Washington had no constitutional power to raise an army and confiscate arms.. He acted unconstitutionally, and nothing was done about his act.

Gatlin: Put on your “big boy” facade and try to dispute my facts when you can.

tpaine posted on 2018-02-26 16:11:24   Reply   Private Reply

#89: VxH    To: hondo68 (#87)

Does the Princess Lea costume come with a pre-installed cocaine addiction... or is that extra?

VxH posted on 2018-02-26 16:38:02   Reply   Private Reply

#90: Hondo68    To: tpaine, gatltin, hates liberty, and God given rights (#88)

That is the clear intent of the 2nd, and gatlins silly attempt to claim the whiskey rebellion proves otherwise is flawed by the fact that it was about booze taxes, and Washington had no constitutional power to raise an army and confiscate arms.. He acted unconstitutionally, and nothing was done about his act.

Gatlin's facts about the Whiskey Rebellion are wrong anyway. President Washington did NOT lead the Army against the rebels, but gave the job to one of his Revolutionary War Generals.

President Washington later showed up to beat down that general for abusing his powers and arresting and imprisoning people under cruel conditions without reasonable suspicion that they were involved in any way.

Eventually 2 people were tried and given light sentences for the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington respected the right of armed rebellion against government, so the "perps" were only given a slap on the wrist.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-02-26 16:51:12   Reply   Private Reply

#91: tpaine    To: hondo68, Gatlin, Put on your big boy facade and try to dispute the facts.. (#90)

Gatlin's facts about the Whiskey Rebellion are wrong anyway. President Washington did NOT lead the Army against the rebels, but gave the job to one of his Revolutionary War Generals.

President Washington later showed up to beat down that general for abusing his powers and arresting and imprisoning people under cruel conditions without reasonable suspicion that they were involved in any way.

Eventually 2 people were tried and given light sentences for the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington respected the right of armed rebellion against government, so the "perps" were only given a slap on the wrist.

Maybe he'll answer you..

Gatlin is too much of a coward to debate me.. He did in the past, but stopped when he lost a lot, poor little fella.

tpaine posted on 2018-02-26 17:11:01   Reply   Private Reply

#92: GrandIsland    To: Tooconservative (#52)

You really should edit that comment. Not everything has to be shared.

Never fear the truth...

GrandIsland posted on 2018-02-26 18:16:00   Reply   Private Reply

#93: tpaine    To: GrandIsland, Y'all (#92)

Tooconservative --- You really should edit that comment. Not everything has to be shared.

Never fear the truth. ---- GrandIsland

Unless the ATF, or the FBI gets on your ass....

tpaine posted on 2018-02-26 18:21:08   Reply   Private Reply

#94: Jameson    To: All (#0)

Rice says US needs to consider Second Amendment's place in 'modern world'

Several thoughts...

1. I'm very much NOT a fan of Ms. Rice

2. Ms. Rice is exponentially smarter than pretty much all of you malcontents in this chat-room

3. Her ideas in this regard are valid and should be considered by any rational intelligent individual.

Jameson posted on 2018-02-26 18:28:21   Reply   Private Reply

#95: GrandIsland    To: tpaine (#93)

I'm not worried. They don't even need a warrant to search my house. I have nothing to hide.

GrandIsland posted on 2018-02-26 18:41:37   Reply   Private Reply

#96: IbJensen    To: Gatlin (#86)

...when criticizing somebody and pointing out the error of their way or exposing their unpleasant traits.

Unpleasant?

I daresay it is you who are exceedingly unpleasant. I will in the future ignore any response you make to my posted articles or comments considering the loutish source.

IbJensen posted on 2018-02-26 18:48:12   Reply   Private Reply

#97: tpaine    To: GrandIsland, boasts about, --- killing the parts of my family that endanger my agenda --- (#95)

I'm not worried. They don't even need a warrant to search my house. I have nothing to hide.

You should worry that some agency would question your mental health about the following statement you made : ----

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. ---- GrandIsland posted on 2018-02-25

tpaine posted on 2018-02-26 18:52:21   Reply   Private Reply

#98: Gatlin    To: IbJensen (#96)

I will in the future ignore any response you make to my posted articles or comments considering the loutish source.

Thank you.

I will continue to post for everyone else to see.

You just sit there and silently take your severe whippings.

Gatlin posted on 2018-02-26 18:55:26   Reply   Private Reply

#99: tpaine    To: IbJensen (#96)

Gatlin (#86) ---- .when criticizing somebody and pointing out the error of their way or exposing their unpleasant traits.

Unpleasant?

I daresay it is you who are exceedingly unpleasant. I will in the future ignore any response you make to my posted articles or comments considering the loutish source. ---- IbJensen

Please, don't bozo the oaf. Gatlin needs all the disdain we can give him..

Cowards need to be told the truth. Even they can't ignore it forever...

tpaine posted on 2018-02-26 18:58:04   Reply   Private Reply

#100: VxH    To: GrandIsland (#50)

I'd think bombs and explosives would be the hot item for underground manufacturing.

================================================

...a host of retired police officers also wrote, calling Gonzales a “domestic terrorist.” They described incidents in which Gonzales’ organization, the Crusade For Justice, turned violent.

Members were arrested on bomb charges, and one battle with police resulted in the shooting death of a young man and an explosion next to the Crusade’s headquarters.

Charles Rowland, who worked with the Denver Police Department’s bomb squad for 21 years, wrote that the city was “known as the bomb capital of the United States. Most of these devices led back to the Crusade. I can’t believe Denver would even think of honoring this person. To me, it’s like hugging Jane Fonda.”

http://www.denverpost.com/2013/05/16/governor-lobbies-to-name- denver-branch-library-for-corky-gonzales/

Same Ol'

VxH posted on 2018-02-26 18:59:22   Reply   Private Reply