Posted on 02/23/2018 6:54:51 PM PST by Pelham
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that its time to discuss what the Second Amendment means in the modern world in light of last weeks mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
Ms. Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, said that while the Second Amendment remains indivisible, she doesnt think civilians should have access to guns like the AR-15, which was used by 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz to fatally shoot 17 students and teachers on Valentines Day.
I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world, she told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt. I dont understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldnt say you can go out and buy a tank.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“So she is pro-abortion and anti 2nd Amendment. And GOPe.”
And a 2 time Obama voter. That Bush admin was something else.../spit
I never trusted her, now she shows who she really is.
Another intelligent person down to the liberal and Democrat cesspool.
Dont like the US Constitution much, Condi? Pass an amendment!
I think that we need to have law enforcement protect us.”
well
My Natural Rights are granted to me by God.
My bet is that the Condi For President movement may suffer a setback...
Yea I think I’d pass on voting for her.. Se don’t like the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Ah we can just ignore that one and we’ll move on to the 3rd.
Hey Tim, I’m on your side. My .22 caliber. Rifle can hit a burglar many, many times before he’d know what hit him. But I can see them taking away my rights to own that little rifle.
A guy coming into my house at night is up is up to no good and he should prepare to be taken out....with extreme prejudice.
World’s easiest discussion.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” explains why the federal government created by our Constitution respects this preexisting, God-given individual right.
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” identifies the right that is protected:
- an individual right held by the people
- a right both to keep and bear arms (meaning any weaponry that can be carried)
- a right with the highest protection of any enumerated in the Bill of Rights - “shall not be infringed” is unambiguous.
If America’s enemies on the left wish to act as the thugs they are, and attempt to disarm us, they do so with no legitimacy at all. It’s a question of pure force. Do they really think they can win that one?
Yet another of Bush’s abhorrent picks once more shows what they always were-big fat liberal leftists who don’t believe in America or the constitution.
Shove it Condi-you’re not getting mine.
Fair enough. As you can tell, I feel pretty strongly about my choice of a semi auto for hunting and self defense.
Yep.
EXACTLY!! I've read waaay too much history to give up my guns. I know what happens next. And there won't be a free society on a distant shore to come rescue us like there was for Europe in 1944.
If legislation is passed and signed by Trump basically saying the Constitution can be cherry picked to mean whatever they want it be at the time, this country is doomed. I figure I got no more than 10 years left so hopefully the republic will stand another 10 years. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
Yea Uniparty, member from the Uniparty president.
No surprise. W advocated for a renewal of the AWB and his solicitor general, Clement, IIRC did not want SCOTUS to rule that 2A recognized an individual right. Condi the neocon having a similar position is no surprise. Bush was meaningfully different that Gore in which ways? Maybe 1 or 2?
condi is merely yet another tiresome uniworld, uniparty, anti-sovereignty moron. What a disappointment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.