Condoleezza Rice on why she supports the Second Amendment
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
Actual deeds matter, actual words don't.
The bigger point is why are you helping republican politicians to screw you? Are you that dumb?
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Veritas non Verbus!
Robinious Rex
Robinious Rex
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And what exactly do you mean by that? How am I exactly helping Republicans screw me by pointing out that Obama wanted gun control but couldn't pass it in Congress?
Figure it out, exercise your brain power.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That's what i thought. More nonsense. The fact of the matter is that if a bill came across his desk, he'd sign it. To say or imply that he wouldn't and instead veto it is disengenuous.
You can argue with his own words and his own executive orders if you like.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
Last I checked, there was no "but" in the constitution. The goal was to have people armed equally with that of an average infantry soldier.
So, should people be allowed to have military "grade" rifles? Of course.
This is still a losing proposition for the libs, and it will continue to be. The moment when the debate will turn on them is when some criminal shows up with a custom M4 built off the grid, and they realize technology has just trumped their arguments and rendered them invalid, since control means nothing anymore.
That will be the precise moment that they will try to declare a full police state on information flow, and want to drastically increase the powers given to the state, namely by weakening the fourth amendment. That's always their solution historically: "Let's increase controls, that will solve it." We already see it, with the calls to either ban, or curtail, encryption. "What do you have to hide, after all?" is what the narrative in. It'll just end in public approval of information gathering programs, and the abolishment of the fourth amendment "for our safety." Welcome to 1984.
So, should people be allowed to have military "grade" rifles? Of course.
This is still a losing proposition for the libs, and it will continue to be. The moment when the debate will turn on them is when some criminal shows up with a custom M4 built off the grid, and they realize technology has just trumped their arguments and rendered them invalid, since control means nothing anymore.
That will be the precise moment that they will try to declare a full police state on information flow, and want to drastically increase the powers given to the state, namely by weakening the fourth amendment. That's always their solution historically: "Let's increase controls, that will solve it." We already see it, with the calls to either ban, or curtail, encryption. "What do you have to hide, after all?" is what the narrative in. It'll just end in public approval of information gathering programs, and the abolishment of the fourth amendment "for our safety." Welcome to 1984.
Last edited:
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It should be abundantly obvious to everyone by now that the democrat party has been hijacked by the commies and don't give two figs what the constitution says and you need only look at the last administration and the MULTIPLE violations of that document to confirm that. And the Republicans are in a struggle to keep from going that route themselves.
Robin
Robin
Deplorable Me
.700 Nitro Express
What Rice described was a mob confronting a mob. A semi-automatic is a force multiplier that allows a lesser individual to fend off a larger mob.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
I bet Condi's dad would have traded his double barrel Joe Biden special for an AR if he had the opportunity.