This month's massacre in Parkland, Fla., seems like a key moment in the nation's ongoing debate about the Second Amendment, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during a radio interview Friday.

“I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world,” Rice told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday. "I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”

More specifically, Rice said weapons like the AR-15 rifle that authorities say shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz, 19, used to kill 17 students and teachers Feb. 14, shouldn't be available to civilians, the Washington Times reported.

But Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, made clear that she remains a believer in the Second Amendment.

“We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First,” she said, adding that she considers the first two amendments to the Constitution to be “indivisible.”

AK-47 will have to do, then.

The whole problem is that the people in the government think that they are superior to the civilians and that they should be able to control their lives and tell them what is best for them. It's not up to her to tell me what kind of guns that I can own. It is my right to have whatever I want. That being said, it is not my right to harm others with those weapons. Trying to deny ownership of weapons to some due to the psychotic behaviors of a few is complete ignorance. The individuals that think more laws and restrictions need to be placed on gun owners need to have the shoe put on the other foot. Everybody needs to stop and think about some of the things in life that they enjoy. Everybody likes different things. What if the things you enjoyed were ruled illegal to do just because somebody else didn't like them? It's a slippery slope when individual rights continue to be stripped.

She has spent too much time at univercitys around libs.

Nothing fires me up as much as people that have zero understanding of WHY we have the second ammendment

It's not for hunting
It's not for home security

It's to have the ability to depose our government if it decides to turn on us and take our freedoms

As written and as envisioned by our forefathers Class III firearms as well as other offensive weapons were to be owned by the people. But we have allowed the federal government to become way more involved in stuff that it is not suppose too. And much have it has been done by TAXING the people and thEn telling local and state government that you follow our rules if you want money to operate like schools and roads ect

The federal governemt has become a giant that can not be tamed

Dripping with the arrogance so common among government parasites.

Let there be no mistake those in power know exactly what the second amendment if about. Why else do they try so hard to eliminate it. Liberty through our democratic republic may have won the battle, but it seems to me that servitude through communism is winning the war.
Do your duty and teach your children and grandchildren the truth and maybe the Republic can prevail. God help us all if we the people have to use the second for why it was established as a right from the beginning.

Where's that quote at Marty?

I think Fox was where I got that.....don't look at much else these days.

Well their all working over time now taking freedoms from American people.

And yet no one is concentrating on how to prevent these acts on dealing with the mental people.

They only concern is the tool used to carry the act out.

I don't get it and surely the problem will not be fixed

She didn't say that. Here is a link to the entire interview:

Condoleezza Rice Interview

She was talking about how her dad used to sit on their porch armed in case bad guys came for his family and said, "And I think it’s a pure version of the 2nd Amendment, as a matter of fact, the right to bear arms."

She also said, " I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t, we wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank. So I do think we need to have that conversation. 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."

But at no point did she specifically mention AS-15's. That was just an "add-on" by a liberal rag to push an agenda.

Fake news got eem.

Good job lugnut.

I guess it depends on what she means by the term 'military weapons'.....if she is talking about school shooting at the same time what does she mean? No one has attacked a school with a tank....

I think many would be surprised at how quickly these people would revoke semi auto firearm ownership if they could and still believe they are pro 2nd amendment. Many fudd gun owners would support an ar-15 ban. Its my opinion that saying you support the 2nd but people should not be allowed to own military weapons is a confused stance.

maybe she is an overeducated rino?

Read the interview that lugnut put up.

I read it......

"I think it is time for us to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world. I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t, we wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank. So I do think we need to have that conversation".

You think we need a conversation about what the 2nd means in the modern world? You think the conversation she wants is about personal tank ownership?

I think I should have a tank,and a rocket launcher and a bazooka and some hand grenades.

How come they did not get what they wanted done about for what happened at Sandy Hook? It made more gun owners in the end. Just like the shooting in CO before all of this.

It was definitely wrote wrong. She said tank. She said military weapons. My little ar is not a military weapon.

I do also.