Doesn’t surprise me. Dr. Carson is a decent man, but showed a tendency towards “progressive” thought during the campaign which is why he lost me fairly early on. “Why do we need the 2nd Amendment” is a question that should never be asked…mostly because the answer is self-evident. Governments are, by FAR, the worst mass killers on the planet–especially over the past 100 years or so–and they always presage their murderous tendencies with weapon confiscation from the general populace so they cannot be effectively opposed. Millions of potential murders are prevented in THIS country every year BECAUSE the intended victims were armed.
Uh…no. He is just apolitical with the lack of understanding that someone who has never considered these questions, the underlying philosophical principles, would have. He’s Left-leaning by default - it’s the way of our culture.
This is exactly what I expected of him. He’s a great neurosurgeon but he’s never shown any political aptitude or unique thought, his whole life.
He’s out of the picture; and that’s where he should stay. He can contribute far more from within the medical field, as he has all his life.
I didn’t look at the link, but the quote in the OP is nothing especially troublesome (not that I don’t have my problems with the man in regard to supporting Trump when his own stated social and political ideologies (oxymoron?) are radically different from Trump’s).
I disagree with PapaDave; a dialogue on the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is exactly what the left does not want. They want the people ignorant of the history of tyranny that comes with an unarmed or disarmed citizenry.
What is worrisome is that he is stating this while he is a surrogate for Trump. I always thought that attacks on the U.S constitution disqualifies you from being president. Considering trump received the NRA endorsement, I imagine he would wade softly in this debate.
Well, at least he’s talking about doing it the “right way”, in the sense that he’s recognizing what the Second Amendment says/means, and talking about repealing it, rather than unconstitutional end-arounds. He’s wrong - the Second Amendment is as needed as ever - but he’s honestly wrong.
Why do you guys focus on race all the time? Who cares about his race, sexual orientation, or how he looks, focus on his policies and positions. This is the reason the Republicans have a difficult time broadening their base, there are many white citizens who support particular gun control measures. It’s all a matter of degrees.
I think if you have a constitution it has to be upheld unless changes are put forward and supported by the population. I don’t think prevention of certain weapons for people who are on a no fly list is something that is radical, especially when put forward in the right circumstances. As speaker Ryan said, due process has to be protected, with this I can agree. To say that this is based on one particular person who is black is disingenuous and it weakens the argument.
I did not form the Congressional Black Caucus, THEY DID!
Have you ever listened to the BC members talk, listened to their positions, listened to their HATE filled racist rhetoric? Most of them lack the ability to form a coherent sentence.
Now ask what if we had a Congressional WHITE Caucus! We don’t and we could not, would not be allowed.
Then there is a small problem with “block voting”. This is just wrong, yet 92% of all blacks vote together 100% of the time.
I don’t care about race, color, creed, religion or anything else IF and ONLY IF you stand tall and are a proud America, support our Constitution fully.
In my view ALL Americas are equal, but legally that is not the case today, minorities are a “protected class” of people with rights and privileges the rest do not have. Until we become, again “we the people” instead of ____________ (fill in the blank with your selected group) we will continue to have social issues and inequality for ALL of us.
If the only way to broaden the base is provide “free stuff”, then I don’t need them in my tent, there is no free lunch here. America was not built on the free lunch principle!
According to the 2006 Census by Statistics Canada, 783,795 Canadians identified as black, constituting [COLOR=#6A6A6A]2.5% of the entire Canadian population. Of the black population, 11% identified as mixed-race of “white and black”.[/COLOR]Ontario: 539,205 (4.3%) Alberta: 74,435 (2.1%)
Quebec: 243,625 (3.2%) British Columbia: 33,260 (0.8%)
I don’t think there is a single mention the need to unlimited access to guns… I think if we limit firearms to just shotguns, it would still be constitutional. I think through the years there grew a gun fetish. I don’t argue that people shouldn’t have guns… but I don’t agree everyone should have access to everything
Even Reagan supported gun control when the black panthers started to arm themselves.
Seems to me that at the time the US Constitution was penned and ratified shotguns were not the only firearm in citizen possession. As things stand today not all firearms are available to the citizens of the US. Refer to the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act as amended. You may want to read the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act also.
“The Right to Keep and Bear ARMS shall Not be Infringed.”
Not “Shotguns.” Not “Cannons.” Not “Flintlocks.” Not “Blunderbusses.”
There is no way for the authors to make it plainer than they did. Voting was never guaranteed as a Constitutional Right. Religion and Speech were put off-limits to the Congress but the States were left with some discretion. Remember, various States had Official State Churches at the time.
I don’t know of any firearms that aren’t available to a citizen?
You can purchase the so called “machine gun” with proper taxes and stamps.
Heck, you can even purchase a fully functional Tank!
“This armored tank is fully functional,” the ArmsList classified states. “The turret is fully operational […] The main gun is registered as a Destructive Device with the ATF and comes with 10 projectiles. More projectiles are available
But is it legal? And can anybody just up and buy something with the insane firepower of a tank or grenade launcher? According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, yes, totally legal.
.”“If they’re operational, you can register those actual cannons [as an NFA weapon],” Russ Morrison, a spokesman for the ATF, told the Daily Dot. “And if they’re sold, they’d have to go through a transfer to make sure everything’s OK, and have it registered, as well.”
Just a simple example for you. Any automatic firearm manufactured after 1986 is not permitted for sale to individual citizens so one cannot obtain the necessary tax stamp stipulated in the 1934 NFA. To purchase a tank the weapons must be permanetly disabled or specially permitted. Ammo for the main gun would also be difficult to replace.