• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Condi Rice stuns the view audience with story about 2nd Amendment

“Let me tell you why I’m a defender of the Second Amendment,” she began.

“I was a little girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, in the late fifties, early sixties,” she explained. “There was no way that Bull Connor and the Birmingham Police were going to protect you.”

“And so when White Knight Riders would come through our neighborhood,” she said, “my father and his friends would take their guns and they’d go to the head of the neighborhood, it’s a little cul-de-sac and they would fire in the air, if anybody came through.”

“I don’t think they actually ever hit anybody,” she continued. “But they protected the neighborhood. And I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were he would have rounded them up.”

“And so, I don’t favor some things like gun registration,” she said to a suddenly silent crowd.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...with-amazing-story-about-2nd-amendment-rights


******MIC DROP**************

I want her to run for President SO badly. She's one of the few people who could wipe the floor with ANYONE who ran against her. Smartest person in almost any room, well spoken, puts the nation first, knows both foreign and domestic policy, has solid executive experience in both the public and private sector. Hits all the checkboxes, IMO.
 
What does this have to do with anything I've said?

This isn't the 60's where black people were systematically discriminated against, were beaten and killed. This isnt' 1940s germany. If you own a gun, it should be registered, and a ballistic test. So if your gun is used in the crime, one will know.

Maryland spent millions on gun database that solved no crimes. - Baltimore Sun

That would make people a lot more vigilant on how they handle their guns.

People who kill in crimes of passion aren't concerned with getting caught at the time they act. People who commit violent crimes as a matter of lifestyle don't use guns registered to them.

This isn't about making a list then targeting them. That's just fear mongering nonsense people try to argue because they don't have any rational reasons to oppose it. THey have to make up fictitious scenarios and slippery slope arguments with no basis in reality.

Would states like Connecticut, New York and Maryland use a registry to confiscate guns they've banned?

You telling me a black person in the deep south in the 60s who pulled a gun out on white folks wouldn't be arrested or harassed by the cops? I never said their gun confiscated, you made that up. Likely a hell of a lot worse would happen. Do people know nothing of history of this country? Or you just believe the white washed, sugar coated nonsense?

I don't believe that every single time that a Black man brandished a gun at a white man committing a crime that they were arrested or harassed by the cops.

How 'Crazy Negroes' With Guns Helped Kill Jim Crow - Reason.com
 
I lived in the South during the 60s and 70s. You're assuming that history books capture every event, and that every event followed the narrative.

If you're calling Ms Rice a liar, please have the courtesy to do so to her face, so to speak. Otherwise, you're just acting like a cad.

I wouldn't dream of calling her a liar, but she is an "outlier" because the fact is, few black families could get away with that stunt. And back then, in Birmingham, it WAS a stunt.
It was every bit a stunt as the Black Panthers strutting down Oakland city streets with THEIR rifles, which BY THE WAY triggered some of the most anti-gun legislation in the history of the country, with the full support of the Republican governor, Ronald Reagan and the NRA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

568adfd71f0000a101e9ce59.jpeg


The whole NRA as staunch defenders of gun rights falls apart the moment black people start behaving the way white III%-ers and Oath Smellers behave.
In fact, it falls apart the moment a black person even says the WORD "gun" out loud in public.

Don't make me laugh.
 
Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well! Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

I agree, I think all gun owners should be provided ammunition so they can practice often.
Oh wait, you do understand that in the context of the 2nd amendment "well regulated" means well trained, drilled and practiced, right?
 
The government likely didn't know what or how many guns Mr. Rice owned either but if you think that would stop a racist lawman from trying to confiscate them, you're not the wrong color, you're the wrong person to discuss this with, LOL.

Fighting "the US Government" with your stash of guns? Really? Seriously?
You guys keep talking about fixing the mental health problem. We should. We should also fix the racism problem, and we DID back then, by SENDING the Federal Government DOWN to the Deep South to ENFORCE Civil Rights laws, and to punish racist law enforcement who refused to deal with their own.
The men who killed those three college voter registration activists were convicted of violating their civil rights. The men who bombed that church in Birmingham were only convicted because of federal efforts, otherwise they would have skated.

If "the US Government" gets so nuts that they decide to come for everyone's guns, they'll just toss a mortar into your house, into every house where they think gun owners live.
Your little stash of guns won't have any effect on that, or on an airstrike.

So, let's be realistic here. I'm trying to be when I say that most people just want to get a handle on controlling the lunatics. They don't want to take away guns from normal people.

You're talking to me like I'm "another lefty liberal gun grabber"...it doesn't seem to matter what I say. It's like I am talking to a brick wall. What else is new...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/312415-charlize-theron-idiot-post1068304827.html#post1068304827

So you're already rolling over for the gov't...
 

"There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."

The science behind the system is valid. The scratches etched onto a casing can be matched to the gun that fired it, mapping a so-called fingerprint to the gun. The Maryland system was an expanded version of the successful but more limited federal National Integrated Ballistic Information Network started in the 1990s. It catalogs casings only from crime scenes and from guns confiscated by police. Maryland's unwieldy version collected the fingerprint from every single handgun sold in the state.

Worse, the system Maryland bought created images so imprecise that when an investigator submitted a crime scene casing, the database software would sometimes spit out hundreds of matches. The state sued the manufacturer in 2009 for $1.9 million, settling three years later for $390,000.

So what we're looking at here isn't a failure of ideas, it was a failure in execution.
I am the last person who would say that every attempt to solve this problem is guaranteed to work.
Like Frank Sloane, owner of Pasadena Gun & Pawn in Anne Arundel County said, "There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."

So I cannot argue with your point that you brought up as regards my home state of Maryland's failed efforts, you're absolutely right, it did not work and it was a waste of time, effort and money.
Again, I am not a gun grabber, nor do I want to make an intrusion on law abiding gun owners.

My idea, which I've talked about in other threads, is more along the lines of something which comes into play when a person draws attention to themselves by their actions.
Keep out of trouble, follow the law, be a responsible gun owner and I say the government should leave you alone.

But what I would like to see is some demonstration that a gun owner IS in fact a responsible person. If they can come up with a means of determining that, good enough for me.
I do not expect some 100 percent guarantee that we can anticipate or stop EVERY SINGLE act of gun violence because I am first to admit that it's unrealistic, and I don't expect a guarantee of some kind of "safe guns" either, also unrealistic.
I don't even think it is even remotely possible to confiscate guns.
That's like trying to confiscate all drugs, impossible.
I just think we need to make an effort to curb the more violent lunatics running around in society, and to anticipate who or what they are, and to head them off at the pass if possible.

Leave the normal gun owners alone. I am one.
 
I agree, I think all gun owners should be provided ammunition so they can practice often.
Oh wait, you do understand that in the context of the 2nd amendment "well regulated" means well trained, drilled and practiced, right?

lol. No, it doesn't. Well regulated, must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of our Republic.
 
I want her to run for President SO badly. She's one of the few people who could wipe the floor with ANYONE who ran against her. Smartest person in almost any room, well spoken, puts the nation first, knows both foreign and domestic policy, has solid executive experience in both the public and private sector. Hits all the checkboxes, IMO.

Hear, hear. And not a partisan ideologue.
 
A regulated militia, is one that has been drilled and trained in the proficient use of their arms.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated
#3 on the list,
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.

The right wing always appeals to ignorance.

Why not read our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land?

Well regulated, must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of our Republic.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
 
The right wing always appeals to ignorance.

Why not read our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land?

Well regulated, must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of our Republic.

Supporting the idea that "regulated" in the context of the second amendment is to ensure proper functioning of the militia.
Read some History please!
 
“Let me tell you why I’m a defender of the Second Amendment,” she began.

“I was a little girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, in the late fifties, early sixties,” she explained. “There was no way that Bull Connor and the Birmingham Police were going to protect you.”

“And so when White Knight Riders would come through our neighborhood,” she said, “my father and his friends would take their guns and they’d go to the head of the neighborhood, it’s a little cul-de-sac and they would fire in the air, if anybody came through.”

“I don’t think they actually ever hit anybody,” she continued. “But they protected the neighborhood. And I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were he would have rounded them up.”

“And so, I don’t favor some things like gun registration,” she said to a suddenly silent crowd.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...with-amazing-story-about-2nd-amendment-rights


******MIC DROP**************

There are always examples for why having a gun is useful. Unfortunately there are always more examples for why having one is a problem.
 
lol. I gave you the, "gospel Truth", for the Militia of the United States.
You may disagree all you want, but the historical context of regulated in the second amendment still means well trained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company.
shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack
 
lol. did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law or politics?

Our federal Constitution is our US, supreme law of the land.
And the language of the constitution is that well regulated, means well trained.
 
lol. like i have always claimed; the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the law, to make points and arguments they cannot defend.

Where are the Knights in White Satin?
The knights in white sheets had another name Democrats!
You cannot rewrite history to fit your dogma, well regulated in the second amendment meant well trained and disciplined,
a body of troops prepared to defend the republic. This required practice and drills, (regulation).
 
The knights in white sheets had another name Democrats!
You cannot rewrite history to fit your dogma, well regulated in the second amendment meant well trained and disciplined,
a body of troops prepared to defend the republic. This required practice and drills, (regulation).

Where did you learn how to read a Constitution?
 
Where did you learn how to read a Constitution?
I read history, words like regulated can have several meanings, to understand the meaning in 1789,
one must read what was written in that time frame related to militias and regulation.
To me the context is clear, regulated means trained and practiced.
You disagree, but what is your disagreement based upon?
Please cite a historical reference, that supports that regulated means something other than well trained and drilled?
 
I read history, words like regulated can have several meanings, to understand the meaning in 1789,
one must read what was written in that time frame related to militias and regulation.
To me the context is clear, regulated means trained and practiced.
You disagree, but what is your disagreement based upon?
Please cite a historical reference, that supports that regulated means something other than well trained and drilled?

did you know that our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land for legal purposes?
 
did you know that our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land for legal purposes?
A more accurate description would be the constitution is the charter under which we operate,
but that still does not change the meaning of regulated from it's original meaning of well trained and practiced.
I am guessing your diversion means you were unable to find a historical reference showing
that regulated means something other than well trained and drilled?
 
A more accurate description would be the constitution is the charter under which we operate,
but that still does not change the meaning of regulated from it's original meaning of well trained and practiced.
I am guessing your diversion means you were unable to find a historical reference showing
that regulated means something other than well trained and drilled?

Yes, it does if expressly enumerated.
 
Back
Top Bottom