Condi on guns
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.
{snip}
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.”
Too bad she ruins it by playing the nonexistent gun show loophole card.
May 12th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
How is that “playing the nonexistent gun show loophole card?” The story doesn’t have her saying anything about loopholes.
May 12th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Then what other ‘controls’ would she be referring to?
May 12th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
XRLQ
The transcript doesn’t have her saying anything about guns or the second amendment.
May 12th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
I’d say it was edited out for space or other reasons.
May 12th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Presumably (and that’s all we can do until/unless someone finds a full transcript), Condi thinks all gun show sales should be subject to background checks. That’s a position on which reasonable minds can differ, but it has nothing to with her nonexistent reference to a nonexistent loophole.
May 12th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
So, you’re telling me that you don’t think all gun show sales should be subject to background checks is not a reference to the transfer provision of the brady bill commonly called the gun show loophole? The loophole which is fully within the law and not typically used to bypass the law. Hence, it’s nonexistent.
May 12th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Of course it’s a reference to that the fact that there is no law specifically requiring gun show sales to be subjected to background checks. That doesn’t make the issue “nonexistent.” Rational, informed individuals can properly debate whether or not there ought to be a law requiring all gun show sales to be subject to background checks. The only thing phony about debating the “gun-show loophole” is the phoniness inherent in the phrase “gun-show loophole,” which Condi did not use. The underlying issue is fair game.
May 12th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Who said the issue didn’t exist? I said the ‘loophole’ didn’t exist. And i’d have no issue with requring dealers who sell personal stock doing background checks. When such a scheme requires me to, I’d take issue with that.
May 13th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
You did, by accusing her of “playing the nonexistent gun show loophole card” merely for raising the issue at all. If she had actually said there was a “gun show loophole,” your response would have been a fair criticism. She didn’t, so it wasn’t.
May 13th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Yes, it is. Again, hat other ‘controls’ would she have referred to?