Is Chris Christie next?
Posted on 11/21/2014 4:28:31 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
If we had any doubts that Ben Carson was running for president, I’m pretty sure they can be laid to rest now. A person who planned on either continuing their work as a neurosurgeon, going into the ministry or just retiring wouldn’t be hosting a conference call ahead of a trip to Iowa to assure everyone that he’s on board with Second Amendment rights. The confusion and accusations arose from a 2013 interview that Carson did with Glenn Beck where he was asked about who should be able to own a semi-automatic rifle.
“It depends on where you live,” Carson told Beck. “If you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it.”
Yeah… sorry Ben, but that’s not going to fly. Let’s see how he cleans this one up.
“There seemed to be group of people—I don’t know exactly who they are—who seize upon one part of something that I said,” Carson said on the call, which Bloomberg Politics was allowed to dial into. “Sometimes people just hear one little thing and they don’t hear anything else.”
Carson said that he could have been more precise in his answer to Beck.
“Perhaps I didn’t convey it appropriately,” he said. “I wanted to convey that, you know, I’ve lived in urban areas. I’ve worked in urban areas. I’ve seen a lot of carnage, and I’d prefer a situation where the kinds of weapons that create that kind of carnage don’t fall to the hands of criminal elements or insane people. But that is secondary to the desire to always defend the Second Amendment.”
Carson said that “under no circumstances” would he “allow a bureaucrat to remove any law-abiding citizen’s rights for any kind of weapon that they want to protect themselves.”
Well, if that’s where he’s putting his stake in the ground he will at least be on the record on the correct side of the issue. Later in the call, while taking questions, he also came out against reinstating the so called “assault weapons” ban and is absolutely not on board with any sort of handgun ban. I’m still not entirely sure where he stands on the whole federal background check / gun registry thing because the few comments we’ve found on record are a bit ambiguous sounding.
All of this should be clarified by January at the latest. By then I expect that Carson will be at the prospective candidate forum hosted by Congressman King in Iowa and this is one subject which will certainly be at the forefront. If he wants to try to stay squishy on gun rights to run toward the center, we’ll know soon enough.
Is Chris Christie next?
Chripsy Kreme is a statist IMHO. I put him right “up” there with Boehner and McConnell...
Remember friends don’t let friends be a squish... Don’t be a squish
“I’d prefer a situation where the kinds of weapons that create that kind of carnage”
memo to Dr. Carson: weapons don’t create
nor do they create carnage
Sorry. Next?
He’ll suture your skull closed in a trice. I’m all fo dat doctah.
He’s the best there is. At that.
I’d call him a dumass to his face, happily, were I ever to meet him, but NO.
This is what Baltimore is like, at John Hopkins University (where Dr. Carson works): You park, you walk one extra block to a drugstore and you’re suddenly surrounded by the Amish and they DO NOT look friendly. The LAST THING you want is for one (or more) of them to be armed.
That is where Ben is coming from. Having said that - if he REALLY UNDERSTOOD the positions for gun rights groups, he would understand that those Amish are NO THREAT to him, and if they have guns, that is just fine. Why? Because the BAD AMISH would already be locked up, so only good Amish would be on the streets. But when you live in a city like Baltimore, you know that the bad Amish DO NOT get locked up, and you accept that (since achieving ‘justice’ against the Amish is next to impossible), and so you go after the NEXT THING that scares you, which is the thought that they might be armed.
Sad, but Dr. Carson CLEARLY has not spent nearly enough time trying to understand the rut cause of the problem.
Other than being black and a superlative surgeon, why would Dr. Casrson be considered for the Presidency?
What did Obama being anything more than a candidate who was a half-Afican/half-white candidate offer? Oops, he was a master of the “Present” vote.
Carson would likely be a great surgeon general.
“Carson would likely be a great surgeon general.”
If, and only if, he actually can show he will support the Second Amendment in its originalist meaning.
Who cares if the melanin enhanced “Baltimorons” get killed off by Americans because they attempt violent crimes?
I will believe him when he says “I am going to work to Repeal GCA 68”.
Until then STFU.
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Carson and am happy to hear that he clarified his support for the 2nd amendment.
He didn’t clarify his support for the 2nd Amendment.
He decided to run for President, and knew that what he firmly believed last year is not going to get him a voting block that he wants.
If you believe that it is only you want to believe the person. To think he has suddenly changed his stance on the 2A is ludicrous. He was caught telling how he truly feels about the 2A and will never live that down.
I will never vote for Christie, and I will never vote for Carson.
Let’s hope the GOP is smarter than to place either of these two on the ticket.
I agree it may be too big a step for him to make the presidency his first public office, but as far as qualifications go, the most important thing I want to see from a candidate is the right values. The second most important thing is an ability to articulate them with a passion. Experience in politics is much lower down the scale, though it wouldn’t hurt.
I listened to that conference call. it was enlightening.
I like Ben, I really do. He reminds me of Chance the Gardener from “Being There.”
This isn’t an insult, not at all. There is a depth to what he says, a considered, measured response to every question. He’s NOT just spouting off talking points, which is sad. Sad because in his innocence, his lack of contrivance, spin, his honesty, he misses the fundamental point to the second amendment.
NO gun law is “constitutional.” Not a one.
“Shall not be infringed” IS, and was meant to be, an absolute. ANY state signing on to the statehood pact under federalism agreed to that statement. As inviolable as rights to life, liberty, property, voting, you name it. If you believe that STATES can control guns by extraconstitutional methods, then you should alwo believe states can refuse rights to read, write, own property, or vote, to those they believe may be mentally ill, or immature, or somehow adjudged unworthy of the franchise.
Ben got it wrong, very wrong, when he suggested (and I can’t quote him here) that it should be okay for someone to carry a gun if they have a concealed carry permit.
He failed. Seriously failed. Epically.
The second amendment, as the first or even the fourth, were never meant to be violated because some Harvard lawyer came up with a fallacious concept of “incorporation.” As in, states can deny you your rights under the constitution because that right was never incorporated into the state-federal compact.
Bullsh*t.
So Ben, as much as I like you, until such time as you have really studied the subject, and can understand the need for having a fundamental, inviolable, unalienable right which can NEVER be taken away from “We, The People.”
THIS is how the second amendment to the constitution reads in modern, plain language:
“Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — any time, any place, without asking anyone’s permission.”
The Atlanta Declaration by L. Neil Smith
This is NOT “extreme,” it is basic, it is fundamental, it is the sine qua non of our existence as citizens and NOT subjects, subject to the whims and arbitrary rule of one such as President Obeyme.
Meditate on this, Ben, and come back to us in a few months when you’ve got it figured out.
As a physician who once believed “gun control” was within the purview of “states rights” I’ve had a “come to Jesus moment” over it and I’d be more than happy to talk with you about it when you’ve read up on the topic.
We have NEVER put a man in the White House with no government experience.
He has learned one of the rules of politics: how to backtrack.
Soon, he will be saying his previous remark was taken out of context.
Carson has no idea what he is in for on the campaign trail.
Ben, you blew it.
My right to keep and bear arms is absolute. It is not subject to your misinterpretations.
Carson’s past statements indicated more concern for gunshot wounds in Baltimore than for the Natural Law rights of the rest of America, specifically the 2nd Amendment.
Better by fat that every Baltimoron kill off each other than the rest of America be deprived of their 2nd Amendment guarantee.
Is it an accident he holds such views as he has articulated regarding a population of Urban Feral blacks, or that he is black?
What is more important - the 2nd Amendment of Baltimorons killing each other?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.