![Sheriff Scott Israel KNEW That FOUR Broward County Deputies Refused To Enter School [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/27973174_10156236600439283_1980253489760515375_n-400x400.jpg)
![The Top Five Systems That Could Have Stopped The #ParklandSchoolShooting [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/kruz-knife.png)
Sigh. Why do all my heroes turn out to be squishes? Condoleeza Rice has had my respect, if not always my agreement, since forever. Until now.
Now she thinks people don’t “need to have access to military weapons.”
“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 don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”
How can a person that smart be so dumb?
First, a firearm having the mechanism of being a semi-automatic does not make it a “military weapon!” For someone of her stature and experience to propagate this misnomer is very underhanded. She’s got to understand how firearms work, does she not? She’s doing what the Left does and making blanket statements about firearms. This furthers the lie that any semi-automatic should be equated with an assault weapon (whatever that is?!).
Second, how on earth does a semi-automatic rifle rate on the same level as a tank? That is a ludicrous comparison and in direct contravention of the interpretation of the Second Amendment in the Heller case. Heller holds that individuals have the right to bear arms – literally what you can carry around with you. You cannot carry around a tank, so Ms. Rice, you fail. When you make outrageous statements like this, you have lost all credibility on the issue. And to think she was our National Security Advisor!
She’s so great on issues like these; why can’t she be better on this issue too?
Third, it’s not really about “need” unless you consider self-defense a “need.” That’s not at all important apparently. It’s only an issue because it somehow got thrown in the Constitution. But now we have to question it.
“But I believe that the rights that we have in the Constitution are indivisible,” she added. “We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First.”
No we cannot, but it sure looks like someone “needs” to go back to school to gain a better understanding of the Second Amendment. Lefties argue that the Right is stupid if they think they’ll be able to hold back the government with an AR-15. “How silly!” they say. “And in this day an age? That threat is long over, right?” Maybe, maybe not. I’m not the one that wants to take the chance. And further, did anyone ever bother to think why we do have such a state of relative peace? It is precisely because the populace is armed. It’s called deterrence, and it’s kept the gargantuan United States government at bay for over two hundred years. It needs to stay that way.
These people sure are destroying their legacies!
Toni says: Third, it is legal to own a tank.
steve says: I get this one from anti-gunners a lot. “So you think I should be able to buy a tank?”
No. No. I don’t. A tank not a personal weapon. A Ma Deuce is not a personal weapon.
They way I interpret the historic context of the militias is they consist of people with weapons that one man can carry and fully supply and maintain without help from others. A personal weapon is one that you can carry your own combat load, you weapon, your cleaning supplies, and any other kit by yourself. If, like the M2, you need one guy carrying the gun, another guy carrying the spare barrel, and 2 other guy carrying ammo…what you have there is a “crew serve weapon.” Like a tank, like an attack helicopter, etc.
They use this stupid argument to try to stump you and make you look stupid. Once you explain to them the difference between a personal and crew serve weapon, they fall back on some “for the kids” stupid argument.
For me, in any gun-control argument with a liberal, I try to slip in a “pro-death abortionist” crack.
“I am surprised a pro-death abortionist cares at all about people getting shot…” Then they go off some pro-choice boilerplate argument about a woman’s body and right to choose. I am guy, I will always lose that argument…unless I say something like “if that fetus or clump of cells or whatever wasn’t alive, why was it growing and why did they need to make a choice about killing it?”
or “if they found cells dividing on Mars what would they call it? Life.”
John in IN says: Dumb Condi should go read US v Miller. There, the Supreme court found that the second amendment aplies to military weapons. Now all of a sudden it doesn’t.
Scott says: Steve, I’m gonna disagree with you on this. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about personal vs. crew served weapons. In fact, up through the Civil war, there were plenty of privately owned cannons, and even privateers, so I’d argue that both intent and precedent of the 2nd would include these, as well as their modern equivalents. And to Jenny’s original point, it is a shame that someone as smart as Ms. Rice would make such a stupid comment.
Kate says: Ok. So she’s not perfect. I still adore her!
rbj says: Actually, I believe the 2nd Amendment does apply to military weapons. What weapon did colonial militias use? .50 caliber muskets. What weapon did British regulars use? .50 caliber muskets.
And they both had those nasty triangular bayonets, the better to make nasty wounds that were hard to heal.
Sarah Hoyt says: I don’t see why I shouldn’t have a tank. .I think the citizens should be able to use everything available and own everything available to stop any incipient governmental tyranny.
Because we, the citizens are the owners of the nation. The government serves at OUR pleasure.
Jenny North says: Concur Sarah. That is the only consistent way to think about it in the bigger picture.
Ahhh, the disappointment of the Bush administration continues !!
Quite frankly, the only reason I supported him was national defense.
GWB says: She has lost my respect – not just because she seems to be a bit squishy about 2A rights, but primarily because she really should have a much better handle on the history and purpose of the 2A. Disappointing, Condi.
11 Comments