• 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

Maccabee said:
I'm asking for evidence about your broad brush statement that right wingers don't want to fix anything.
Click to expand...

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, economics, or morals.

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law; it fixes a Bad moral Standard for less fortunate illegals.
 
danielpalos said:
lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, economics, or morals.

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law; it fixes a Bad moral Standard for less fortunate illegals.
Click to expand...

So you have no evidence that the right don't want to fix anything. got it.
 
danielpalos said:
lol. 10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Don't be illegal to federal law; it fixes a Bad moral Standard for less fortunate illegals.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the right not wanting to fix anything?
 
Maccabee said:
What does that have to do with the right not wanting to fix anything?
Click to expand...

they like to complain about everything.

Why are we wasting the (other) Peoples tax monies with alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; when all we really need to do is, Muster the Militia!
 
danielpalos said:
This is what our Second Amendment defends:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



We should not have security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...

Can you link to the part of the constitution that includes the words you posted?
 
Chillfolks said:
It's a powerful story.

I do question how factually accurate it is. I tend to question any politician that pulls out on of these childhood memories that fit to perfect into a political position.
Click to expand...

It could be that she has that political position because of her childhood experiences.

However, that said, the coincidence is possible.
 
danielpalos said:
Why are we wasting the (other) Peoples tax monies with alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; when all we really need to do is, Muster the Militia!
Click to expand...

How is that evidence that the right complains more than the left?
 
danielpalos said:
Only the right wing propagates that propaganda and rhetoric. There are no individual terms expressly declared in our Second Article of Amendment.
Click to expand...
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yes, there are individual terms.
 
KLATTU said:
“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...
Click to expand...

Huh, I would have laid money on her becoming a democrat after they passed the Civil Rights Act and forced the Dirty South to stop separate but 'equal'. The bottom line to her story was how the whites tried to intimidate blacks and the law did nothing about it, or helped as the Mississippi Burning murders in '64 showed.

Having grown up during this period I would have said anyone firing while a hate group passed by would have started a fire fight, doesn't matter if one group just fired in the air. Angry black man with a 'gun' wasn't as scary to a bunch of white racists as you might think.... :roll:

But to equate the period before progressive activism with now is not very honest. Back then if Bull Conner didn't need to know where those guns were, it was the Jim Crowe South, he'd just go door to door and search with a 'warrant' for drugs, illegal booze or some excuse. He'd toss into County anyone who'd even think about resisting.

But it makes a good shut them up story.... :peace
 
danielpalos said:
No, they are not. The People and the Militia are plural, not individual.
Click to expand...

The People is you and I. Normal citizens. Thus making it an individual right like the people's right to have freedom of speech.
 
KLATTU said:
“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**************
Click to expand...
I think she has a point, but the Second Amendment also allows the White Knights to have guns, which necessitates others to have guns to protect their neighborhoods. The argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from crazy people with guns doesn't resonate well with me.
 
Cameron said:
I think she has a point, but the Second Amendment also allows the White Knights to have guns, which necessitates others to have guns to protect their neighborhoods. The argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from crazy people with guns doesn't resonate well with me.
Click to expand...

People own firearms for many reasons, self defense is only one. If one does not want to own a firearm to be able to defend themselves and loved ones that is their choice, for those that do the 2nd A ensures they also have that choice.
 
Casper said:
People own firearms for many reasons, self defense is only one. If one does not want to own a firearm to be able to defend themselves and loved ones that is their choice, for those that do the 2nd A ensures they also have that choice.
Click to expand...
I wish that were the case, but in my opinion, the people who are the most passionately pro-gun are also the people who should least have guns. I happen to live in a place where gun ownership is very restricted, so I do not feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. But if I lived in a place with a bunch of anti-gay gun nuts (or if I were black in the 50-60s) then I probably would feel forced to buy a gun for my own protection. Which is the really insidious aspect of NRA policy.

IMO, the ideal gun owner is one who thinks guns should be used as a last resort, not those who want one so they can take the law into their own hands, if necessary.
 
Cameron said:
I wish that were the case, but in my opinion, the people who are the most passionately pro-gun are also the people who should least have guns. I happen to live in a place where gun ownership is very restricted, so I do not feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. But if I lived in a place with a bunch of anti-gay gun nuts (or if I were black in the 50-60s) then I probably would feel forced to buy a gun for my own protection. Which is the really insidious aspect of NRA policy.

IMO, the ideal gun owner is one who thinks guns should be used as a last resort, not those who want one so they can take the law into their own hands, if necessary.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how tolerant gun owners tend to be. They may disagree with you ideology, but they'll leave you alone.
 
Cameron said:
I wish that were the case, but in my opinion, the people who are the most passionately pro-gun are also the people who should least have guns. I happen to live in a place where gun ownership is very restricted, so I do not feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. But if I lived in a place with a bunch of anti-gay gun nuts (or if I were black in the 50-60s) then I probably would feel forced to buy a gun for my own protection. Which is the really insidious aspect of NRA policy.

IMO, the ideal gun owner is one who thinks guns should be used as a last resort, not those who want one so they can take the law into their own hands, if necessary.
Click to expand...

So you are fine with the vast majority of gun owners having their guns.
FYI, living in an area where guns are restricted, only means fewer law abiding citizens own them, criminals do not comply with those restrictions, so in reality you really are not any safer, that is an illusion, hopefully you will not learn that truth the hard way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom