Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Endorsement retracted

I'm sorry, but I'm taking back my endorsement of Condoleezza Rice for President in 2008. Via Geek With A .45, the Countertop Chronicles brings us the relevant portion of the Larry King interview where she addresses the Second Amendment.

Here's the part that Yahoo! mentions in their article:

MR. KING: By the way, what do you think about gun control?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Larry, I come out of a -- my own personal experiences in which in Birmingham, Alabama, my father and his friends defended our community in 1962 and 1963 against white nightriders by going to the head of the community, the head of the cul-de-sac, and sitting there armed. And so I'm very concerned about any abridgement of the Second Amendment. I'll tell you that I know that if Bull Connor had had lists of registered weapons, I don't think my father and his friends would have been sitting at the head of the community defending the community.


MR. KING: So you would not change the Second Amendment? You would not --


SECRETARY RICE: I also don't think we get to pick and choose in the Constitution. The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment of the --


We're good so far, and I particularly like the point that the Second is as important as the First. I take this as a direct jab at the media who constantly scream bloody murder when the First Amendment is threatened, but who would cut the Second from the Constitution without a second thought.

But then she loses me:

MR. KING: But doesn't having the guns, while it's protection, also leads to people killing people?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, obviously, the sources of violence are many and we need to get at the sources of violence. Obviously, I'm very much in favor of things like background checks and, you know, and controlling at gun shows. And there are lots of things we can do. But we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that our Founding Fathers thought very important. And on this one, I think that they understood that there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Alabama, when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you.

No, no, no, no, NO! This isn't the position a Second Amendment Absolutist (and that's what I've seen her called in various forums) takes.

First, background checks do violence to the Second and our civil liberties without a commeasurate benefit. Career felons do not buy guns anywhere they're subject to a background check. Those who suffer from mental illness or alcoholism, abuse drugs or renounce their US citizenship aren't listed in some central registry. (Yet. Real ID is coming.)

As to "controlling at gun shows", I'm just going to scream. LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! How often does that need to be pointed out? I have never seen anyone do anything illegal at a gun show, save for a few feloniously stupid questions about converting guns to full auto asked by idiots (or ATF plants). Gun show attendees tend to be well-behaved and very concerned with obeying firearms laws. So what do we mean by "controlling at gun shows" Ms. Rice? Please don't tell me you're one of those that believe we must close down the Illegal Arms Bazaars before we arm every terrorist in the world with a .50 BMG rifle so they can shoot down planes and blow up refineries.

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Long time readers of my blog know I was a vociferous supporter of President Bush in the 2004 election. However, that was only because John Kerry-Edwards was so much worse that I felt I had no choice but to support him. Face it, Bush is no conservative (small "c", please). If you think he is, please review his social, fiscal and foreign policy positions.

(And before anyone wants to start with a "how great the War on Terror is" rant, let me say this: A conservative may well have went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the goals would have been better defined, and the troops would have been home by now. There would have been none of this "nation building" business. In, whack the pee-pees of the people who attacked us, and home again, lesson taught. Repeat as necessary.)

I may well vote for a Condi Rice or someone of similar positions, but I will not be an enthusiastic supporter. Where's that viable third party when you need it?

No comments: