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: 7877
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 (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: All (#38)
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.
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
Says the woman with a CCW permit and armed bodyguards to surround her anytime she leaves her office or home.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You do realize that the 2nd Amendment is the topic of conversation, don't you Parsons? Au contraire, mon ami. (A bit of French lingo there to demonstrate my fondness for little froggies.) 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.
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.
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?
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.
You are a snide one, Gatlin! (That's snide....not wise!) 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.
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. 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.
Comments (81 - 144) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#71. To: Gatlin (#14)
#72. To: IbJensen (#0)
#73. To: Gatlin (#64)
You do know that I never once mentioned the Second Amendment anywhere In my post, don’t you?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#74. To: IbJensen (#68)
the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd.
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.
#75. 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?) "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.
#76. To: Deckard (#73)
You do know that I never once mentioned the Second Amendment anywhere In my post, don’t you?
#77. To: Gatlin (#75)
#78. To: Gatlin (#74)
You do however have the right to hold and express your pwn opinion.
#79. 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.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#80. To: Deckard, hondo68 (#79)
(Edited)
he's happy being a slave and when the gooberment says you MUST turn in your guns
"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
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]