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: 7841
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 # 14.
#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.
#16. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, Deckard (#14)
(Edited)
Name calling is for a juvenile. Pay attention and stop twisting peoples' words. Stone did no such thing as "name calling"; He stated you "sound like" Bernie Sanders or Hillary. 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. The 2A IS designed to allow the citizenry to defend itself from individual as well as organized TYRANNY. Q: Do you feel it is "impossible" for this government to engage in tyranny?? A simple YES or NO answer will suffice.
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.
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.
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
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.
Replies to Comment # 14. You sound like Bernie Sanders or Hillary.
#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
#30. To: Gatlin (#14)
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.
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.
#71. To: Gatlin (#14)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]