Condi: RKBA as Important as Free Speech

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_guns_1&printer=1

Rice: Gun Rights Important As Free Speech

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic WriterWed May 11, 9:13 PM ET

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.
Click to expand...

Condi for Prez! :D
 
Condi for Prez!
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing even before I got to the end of the post!
Click to expand...
Aren't you guys afraid that we would hurt the liberal's feelings by having a race traitor (and a female at that) for President? I mean really, after all the libs have done for her, and she is willing to throw it all away and betray modern liberalism with talk of [gasp]GUNS?!?[/gasp]


You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. ;) :p
 
I watched the interview last night on Larry King. She was terrific except the perfunctory "Islam is a great religion of peace" drivel. Even if it is, you don't have to preface each phrase containing the word "Islam" with "peaceful" or "Great". I don't hear people speaking of Judeism or Christianity by prefacing the noun with "great" or "ancient and peaceful" or anything of that nature.

Still, Condi is the Republican's best bet for Prez as it stands and I would not hesitate to vote for her, campaign for her, and send her money. The next best bet I heard mentioned yesterday was Newt Gingrich. Like him or hate him, he was smart and he got things done.

A lot will depend on who gets the Democratic nod. Hopefully it will be Hillary. With scandals still swirling around the Clinton organization, Hillary would be a disaster for them and we could run anybody- even Bob Dole again and win!
 
Wow, she's gained a few more points of my respect. I especially like that her experience links protecting minority civil rights with gun ownership. Then we can say to the gun-banning liberals, well, if her father hadn't guns, her family might have been lynched or their houses burned or any number of nasty things. It could make the liberals look like their stomping on minorities.
 
These statements are edited out of broadcast version of the Larry King
interview.


http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/05/condi_rice_on_t_1.php



Larry King "blips out" Condi Rice on the right to arms
Posted by David Hardy · 12 May 2005 11:46 AM

A bit of an anomaly: She was on Larry King Live yesterday, and the AP report sums it up:

"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."

But the transcript from LKL show doesn't show any of that. What's up here?

UPDATE: the logical explanation would be that she said it, and Larry King edited that footage out. But how did the AP hear of it? Were print media invited to the filming, and was it taped for later broadcast, so that editing was possible? Apparently so.

Instapundit points out that the LA Times also covered the story, and added that she said that the Second Amendment was as important as the First Amendment. Instapundit notes that the LA Times said the broadcast was taped (which is not in the story as it is now online, but is apparent from the transcript -- where someone else (actor Robert Garrett) is plugged into the middle of the program.

It looks as if her views on the right to arms were replaced by a segment with Garrett, about dancing moves he learned in the circus, etc.. It looks like a very hasty edit (King does't even introduce the guy -- it cuts right to him talking about dance moves) So the show has the Secretary of State, then Garrett fellow, then back to the Secretary of State. (During the interview of the fellow, King states that Condi Rice will be the guest tommorrow, so apparently they took some footage from the day before and used it as filler. Sounds like a hasty decision, but then if you suddenly discover your guest wants to talk favorably about the right to arms, I guess a hasty edit is just what you need).

I wish the Republicans would run her for President....
Click to expand...

Larry King makes me :barf: :barf:
 
I don't think we should have a female president. Women get less respect than men do the world over. We all pretend otherwise, but the fact is that if we had a female president she would have to cover her face in some countries. Blacks also get less respect. Why do people think the world has changed and today black women get as much respect as white men? It's laughable. If the republicans try to run a woman (especially a blaxican or whatever she is) for president, they will split the party and we will get Hillary or her ilk. I'm telling y'all, the republican voter base is NOT going to rally around a black girl for president.

But if I am wrong, then please tell me when the world changed. Would a black woman have been elected president 50 years ago? Ten years ago? Does being black and female actually make a person MORE likely to be elected today, or are y'all saying that race and gender are not a factor??
 
Larry didn't edit it out of the program. I watched it on TV when she began talking of the nights her father organized armed watches to keep the neighborhood safe. There's no truer defender of the second amendment than somebody who's needed its protection to live.

Hugh,
I believe Margret Thatcher changed things a bit following up on Golda Meir and Indira Ghandi. I don't think she would have to cover her face in any country. My good friend worked for Saudi Aramco as a chemical engineer and they didn't mind her uppity ways because she brought them wealth.

Secondly, if a black woman is a liability, it is one I'm willing to risk for a mind like hers. A woman who commands the most powerful economic and military force the world has ever known and the leader of the world's only hyper-power would likely recieve respect begrudgingly by even the folks over in Pakistan.
 
A woman who commands the most powerful economic and military force the world has ever known and the leader of the world's only hyper-power would likely recieve respect begrudgingly by even the folks over in Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Pakistan was not so long ago ruled by a woman. Her gender and race are definitely not barriers to effective leadership.
 
"I don't think we should have a female president. Women get less respect than men do the world over."

Like, for instance, Margaret Thatcher? Queen Elizabeth I? Queen Victoria? Just a few examples from the other side of the pond, right off the top of my head.

Bull!

Respect is earned and comes with the office, it has very little to do with superficials like what sex you happen to be. Respect comes from being the leader of the world's most powerful nation, economically as well as militarily.
 
India has had a woman leader, too.
Hugh Damright, hugh are damwrong and you are the one who is delusional if you believe a black woman American President will EVER cover her face in a foreign country. The world HAS changed. Changed to the point that somebody who refers to a black woman as a black girl is now getting told he outdated views that would try to inhibit our best and brightest (such as Condi) from coming to the fore to serve the best interests of the country. We can't afford to cater to your outdated views in a competitive world. The country has changed to become more of a meritocracy where those with racist views or who wish to keep women behind are being pushed to the sidelines as the irrelevancies and deadweight they have become. Your views on this are relentlessly and inexorably being pushed aside day by day and minute by minute.
You are wrong. I will tell you that the world didn't change on one specific date as your question implies, but it did change. The horrible example of the death camps started the ball rolling. Some judicial decisions by Republican judges and the courage of Dwight D. Eisenhower (rest his great soul) to call out the troops in Little Rock got the ball rolling with our domestic issues. The 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Norman Rockwell painting concerning the right to vote is one of the great advocacy works of art ever produced. George Wallace's recantation. Lester Maddux is now a character whose actions are now laughed at and decried. The breakdown of apartheid practices in the 1950's.
Your all or nothing question at the end of your post is a sham. Yes, race and gender ARE a factor. Just not the prohibitive factor you wish it to be. We've had a woman VP candidate, there's a big change from those idyllic daze of 1859 for you.
I'll tell you who doesn't get much respect in this country any more. Bigots. Of all genders and races, so you are eligible. Congrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top