You realize, of course, that if Cain is elected, then you can forget about National Reciprocity.
You can also forget about owning a gun in any state in the future which has a large number of Democrat voters because Cain will not interfere.
Lastly, the United States Supreme Court is just 1 judge away from determining that individual citizens are not allowed to own, possess, or carry guns.
So, all states are held hostage to the state with the worst gun laws. If California see's no problem with issuing concealed permits to illegal aliens with numerous felony convictions; your state MUST abide by that decision? That seems a bit extreme, doesn't it?
You can also forget about owning a gun in any state in the future which has a large number of Democrat voters because Cain will not interfere.
Not true; the Constitution supercedes the states in specific areas. For example, slavery is illegal in all states. In cases where the Constitution does not dictate, those powers belong to the state, such as Age of Conscent, income taxes, etc. We also have legal challenges concerning the 'Right to Bear Arms' that are constantly changing existing state laws. No state can arbitrarily remove 'rights'. The Bill of Rights garrantees specific things, no state can remove those rights without legal redress. This is as it should be.
Lastly, the United States Supreme Court is just 1 judge away from determining that individual citizens are not allowed to own, possess, or carry guns.
Again, false. To change the Constitution requires a Super-Majority vote in Congress, followed by a Presidential signature. The Supreme's do not get to 'ad hoc' change the constitution as they see fit.
NOT TRUE
Herman Cain is 200% pro 2nd Amendment. What he said in the Blitzer interview (mentioned on that link you posted) was taken to mean that he believed states could overrule the 2nd amendment. He does not believe that and he explains here:
(at the 10:17 mark) I strongly support the 2nd amendment. I said that some things should be left up to the states, for example, if the states want to require background checks, let the states decide that. But I did not in ANY WAY mean states had a right to restrict access to owning firearms. So that was the misunderstanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOUF1Hug0JI
You wrote:
“You realize, of course, that if Cain is elected, then you can forget about National Reciprocity. You can also forget about owning a gun in any state in the future which has a large number of Democrat voters because Cain will not interfere.”
In contrast stand the facts of what he actually said, in context:
BLITZER: All right. Let’s talk about gun control. Do you support any gun control?
CAIN: I support the Second Amendment.
BLITZER: So you don’t — so what’s the answer on gun control?
CAIN: The answer on gun control is I support strong — strongly support the Second Amendment. I don’t support, you know, onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
BLITZER: Should states or local governments be allowed to control the gun situation? Or should...
CAIN: Yes.
BLITZER: The answer is yes?
CAIN: The answer is yes. That should be a state’s decision.