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.
No, Dr. Carson. I do not believe we misunderstood. The gist of your remarks were to base gun ownership on where one lives. Dense population versus sparse population. Effectively taking rights away from someone merely because of where they choose to reside.
It is obvious you have shown your true colors and do not truly understand the purpose and implementation of the 2nd amendment or any of the bill of rights for that matter.
If you are worried about “crazies” or “criminals” then work to enforce the laws, keep the violent criminals behind bars, stop the liberal dispensing of psychotropic drugs. But allow those of us who are responsible law abiding citizens, about 90% of the population, to exercise our rights, unfettered by the hoplophobic, statist, anti-freedom politicians.
Or STFU, already.
I feel the same way, I have a lot of respect for him. And while it is absolutely true that I was very disappointed when I read the text of his original stance, but now I have to say that there is an aspect to his explanation that I construe as political posturing, and that almost dismays me more.
I can’t say I blame him if he is posturing, to do otherwise is to throw in the towel. But I would respect him more if I felt more strongly that he wasn’t simply playing politics as he tried to explain his words.
Additionally, there is something in the tone of his response somewhere that sounds thin-skinned to my ear, even though I can’t quite put my finger on it.
He is a good man and I hope he goes far but you are right. The 2nd amendment is too important and must be a priority
for our next POTUS.
It's sad. I like the guy.
Dr. Carson is a good man and the 2nd amendment is very important. I really hope this time around we don’t tear
our presidential candidates apart like the last time. We
can simply disagree with them and maybe we won’t end up
with the last man standing(Romney).
If it has not already happened then the NRA needs to arrange a meeting between Dr Carson and Wayne Lapierre. He needs to
be brought up to speed on gun issues and some history. In truth if he is interested in a campaign then he should be seeking out the NRA. My assumption is that he is on
the naive side of gun issues. I would like for him to take the opportunity to learn some things that we all know. Then I want to hear what he has to say. Given his vocation I can
understand his ignorance.
Go to hell, Carson, from whence your ideas come. I will not vote for you, for it is clear that you covet this position to infringe my God-given rights under color of law. I don't care what your skin color is, evil is evil, and plotting to take a man's right to self-defense is EVIL.
Sorry Ben....now go away.
Cough*colinpowel*cough
How can one prove he would do something before being put into a position where the necessary actions could take place?
Carson’s willingness to disarm the citizens because crazies might get such weaponry and use it is a classic reasoning of those squishy on the Constitution.
Yes, evil exists. Guns can be used for evil if an evil person so decides. Better to have an armed populace so that as much firepower as possible will be on site as soon as the evil begin to shoot. The Founders understood that, but Carson seems not to have.
ChiCongo is a case in point. Lots of innocent, Defenseless bystanders are shot there AND they are defenseless by law. That sort of law is what Carson supported. Those laws can’t work, and given the prominence of teh 2dn Amendment issues in today’s politics, for Carson to have mae the statement he did is unlikely to be a casual comment. He has seen too many wounded and dying, he seems to be saying. I am of the opinion that if Batlimore had not disarmed its citizens, the bad seed would have been weeded out by Mr. Gun in the hand of Mr. Citizen and Baltimore and the gene pool dwelling there would have been the better for such a weeding.
Historically, America did not tolerate the “Blacking Off” behavior we allowed nation wide after the 1960’s.
PS No race got such behavioral passes before the 1960’s.
Well, not since Washington. Or Ulysses S. Grant. Or Ike Eisenhower. Or President Obeyme. But other than that, off the top of my head, you’re right.
Those men had plenty of government experience, especially Washington and the other flag officers. Go read some biographies. You don’t think that the military is “government” now?
Um, no... I do NOT believe that the military is the government now, as you put it. If it were, President Obeyme wouldn’t be purging the ranks of the people who took an oath they believe in.
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.