Rice: Gun Rights Important As Free Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
Rice: Gun Rights Important As Free Speech
Associated Press
http://www.sierratimes.com/05/05/13/ap_rice.htm

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.
In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.

Birmingham, where Rice was born in 1954, was a focal point of racial tension. Four black girls were killed when a bomb exploded at a Birmingham church in 1963, a galvanizing moment in the fight for civil rights.

Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, "we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."

Rice said the Founding Fathers understood "there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."

"I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution," she said in the interview, which was taped for airing Wednesday night. "The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."

The First Amendment protects religious, press and speech freedoms as well as the rights to assemble and petition the government. The Second Amendment guarantees "a well-regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Gun-rights supporters and those who favor gun control disagree over whether the amendment guarantees individual gun ownership.
 
The article is not a lie. It was part of a taped interview for a broadcast and the reference to the Second Amendment was cut from the broadcast. The broadcast transcript shows only what was aired on CNN Larry King Live (which despite the name was taped and then aired Wednesday night).

Note that the CNN copy of the transcript mentions it may be incomplete. The Department of State has a full transcript of the interview at:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/46063.htm
 
Why doesn't it surprise me that CNN would cut a very strong defense of the 2nd Amendment? We certainly can't have the public listening to stuff like that, can we?? Especially coming from a powerfull, well known female.
 
If the 2nd Amendment is as important to Rice as the 1st Amendment, I think that what she really means is, neither of them are very important.

Her current boss signed Campaign Finance Reform, which placed limitations on the 1st Amendment. She has never opposed CFR in any way.

If she supports abridging the 1st Amendment, she will support abridging the 2nd Amendment.

If the 2008 election ends up between Hillary and Condoleeza, get ready for another Clinton in the White House.
 
ALL politicians support limits on the Bill of Rights- even Libertarian candidates.

You'll never find a candidate who won't and if they say they support no infrigement of the Bill of Rights they are flat out liars.

:cuss:
 
Whoa, I didnt know that Larry King Live was edited for content. I assumed it was live or something. I havent watched it in like 6 years, but still.

Sorry for saying what I did.
 
She was right to place the 2nd on the same plane as the 1st. The example she cites is a perfect example of why the 2nd is so important not only as an instrument of self-defense against crime, but self and community defense against tyranny bred by corrupt and ineffective government.
 
If the 2nd Amendment is as important to Rice as the 1st Amendment, I think that what she really means is, neither of them are very important.

Her current boss signed Campaign Finance Reform, which placed limitations on the 1st Amendment. She has never opposed CFR in any way.
Dear Lord. Who would you vote for? I mean, Condi is not an ideal candidate, because there are no ideal candidates. This is the real world. But, this woman, with a longshot-yet-by-no-means-impossible shot at winning the presidency, says, in an interview, on the record, in front of God and everyone, that gun rights are as important as free speech rights, and we still find a reason to complain?

This....precisely this...is why the libertarians will (IMO) never, ever, ever be a serious influence in US politics. Anyone who does not stand up to every exhaustive litmus test we (I include myself loosely in this group) can muster is just "the same as Hillary Clinton (or whomever the leftist hobgoblin of the day is)" and must be shunned. If the libertarians want to be a force, they need to be able to support candidates that might stray from their idealogically pure positions.

Bush picked her as National Security Advisor and as Secretary of State. It is utterly, completely and totally 100% not her job to opine on the shortcomings of Bush's policy decisions outside of this arena. Do you agree with every stupid thing your boss does? I bet you don't. Do you openly tell everyone (in front of the boss) that the boss is wrong, you're right, and that you think what he's doing is a stupid? Of course you don't...you like being gainfully employed. When Colin Powell was "wandering off the reservation" a little bit in the foreign policy arena, we were all pretty quick to jump down his throat. Part of this was for the things at which he was hinting, but a lot of it had to do simply with him hinting, period. You're there to support the administration, not subvert it. If it is doing something so bad that you can't countenance it, resign and get a lucrative book deal and/or speaking gig. And if we're taking Condi's failure to resign over campaign finance reform as a reason not to support her, I'm sorry. I just can't buy that. In that world there would be politicians and career government employees (some skilled, some not) impaling themselves on their figurative swords daily. It's just not a realistic expectation.

I firmly agree that we need Condi (and every other candidate) to flesh out her positions on a lot of issues before we can place our support in her, fully. However, once again, name me one other realistic candidate for the office who will say what she has said, on the record. We should be encouraged, not reflexively looking for the cloud around this silver lining.

Mike
 
Dear Lord. Who would you vote for?


I would vote for Condoleeza Rice. She would be the best candidate the Republicans have run since 1980. My point was not that I would not vote for her. My point is that she is still not an ideal candidate, no matter how badly conservatives wish she was. Followers of the Republican party have failed many times to point out the shortcomings of their candidates before they get the nomination. They blindly support whoever the candidate is without looking at how they stand on all issues. As a result, we get candidates (and presidents) like George Bush. Rice, and any other candidate need to be scrutinized with a magnifying glass and pinned down on issues as much as possible. There is a huge difference between saying, for example, "I think gun rights are as important as free speech" and saying "I will support no law that in any way limits gun rights and free speech".

It is a moot point however, as she will never get the nomination. The powers that be in the Republican party consider her too conservative, and don't have the backbone to pick a woman, let alone a black woman. They will pick another Rich White Guy who is more concerned with gathering power and lining the pockets of his Rich Friends.

As for whether or not I agree with everything my boss does, I guess I do, since I am him.

I understand that she might not be willing to protest CFR while employed, but that is a back bone issue, and nothing more. Other members of Bush's cabinet have criticized policy and remained employed. Cheney is one example, he is on record opposing Bush's plan for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He expressed this several times on TV prior to the 2004 election. Rice is too valuable to Bush on matters related to foreign policy to be fired over disagreeing with CFR.

If by some chance she does run, I would love to hear her say that CFR limits free speech, and that she would work to get rid of it. If she would do that, I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
 
Dear Lord. Who would you vote for? I mean, Condi is not an ideal candidate, because there are no ideal candidates. This is the real world. But, this woman, with a longshot-yet-by-no-means-impossible shot at winning the presidency, says, in an interview, on the record, in front of God and everyone, that gun rights are as important as free speech rights, and we still find a reason to complain?

Think this kind of says it all. A politician is actually unambiguously pro-RKBA in public, and all we can do is bitch? On a gun forum :scrutiny:

I think Rice could easily win an election. The Democrats only win on the national level because black people as a group reflexively vote Democrat. Rice would split those votes simply because she's black, which would make her win pretty much automatic, barring her doing something stupid or running an incompetent campaign.

The Democrats running against a black woman would make their brain explode. I'd like to see that just for the entertainment value. :D
 
Taking a step back here, isn't it funny that a forum full of supposed stupid racist rednecks (since that's what all gun owners are, right? ;) ) is largely rooting for a black woman?
 
A politician is actually unambiguously pro-RKBA in public, and all we can do is bitch?

Pardon my skepticism, but that is just not what I see.

She says she supports the 2nd Amendment as much as the 1st. OK, she works for an administration that has abridged the 1st amendment. Does this mean she would be willing to abridge the 2nd the same way?

Maybe I am looking for more meaning that is not there.

I hope she is pro-RKBA.
 
I don't care what color Rice is. The woman has balls. It isn't too often you see a major public official offer full support of the 2nd Amendment. I know, I know, there are people on this board that would quibble, but come on. It's darned rare to hear someone as important as Rice to much such strong pro-RKBA statements.
 
I think it's great that she said that. And I think it's also sickening, in an acustomed way, that it was deleted because she said it.

I can't think of any better example of one of the biggest problems with 'the system'. She said, clear as can be, exactly what everyone here has been saying, and she provided extremely solid reasons and references. AND IT WAS CENSORED.

F*ing unbelievable. Just F*ing unbelievable. F this BS.
 
Despite her denials of having presidential ambitions, I think it's very possible that she might give it a try.

As for her splitting the black vote, I don't see it happening. She may get more votes from blacks than GW did, but the leaders in the black community view black conservatives as whites.

I remember one black columnist complaining about the lack of "people of color" in the 2000 presidential primaries. He wrote off Alan Keyes by saying that he'd "lost his soul long ago."

Rice would definitely pick up the female vote, though. GW had a deficit among women voters. Rice would not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top