…if you were naive.
Condoleezza Rice: ‘I Don’t Understand Why Civilians Need to Have Access to Military Weapons’
On Friday’s “Hugh Hewitt Show,” former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice argued that there should be “a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world.” She added, ” I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons.”
To be clear, she’s speaking in reference to the high school shooting in Parkland.
I challenge this former Secretary of State — would should have some professional knowledge of the military forces of the world — to tell me what country in the world generally issues semiautomatic rifles to its regular troops as the standard arm. Obsolete surplus going to reserves doesn’t count (the keyword being “obsolete). A handful of special arms going to… specialists, like designated snipers, doesn’t; I said general issue to regular troops (and in the US military, those sniper rifles tend to be civilian models adopted by the military)
How ’bout it, Rice?
“I don’t really like the idea, frankly, of a gun in my classroom. I think that we need to have law enforcement protect us.
No. We DEFINITELY haven’t had THAT. Not for a long time.
“I will say this, Hugh. I think it is time for us to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world.
We had that conversation. Several times. It’s settled, unless you want to put together a constitutional convention. Just remember that in a constitutional convention, everything is up for grabs, not merely the stuff you dislike.
Lady, you were Secretary of State. You took an oath. You should know this stuff already.
We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.
You can. If anyone is selling.
But I believe that the rights that we have in the Constitution are indivisible. We can’t throw away the 2nd Amendment and keep the 1st.”
That’s exactly what you’re demanding. And it doesn’t work. We’ve needed 2nd Amendment rights to protect First Amendment rights, and to fight tyranny.