Posted on 11/11/2011 9:49:00 PM PST by TitansAFC
When I saw Herman Cain’s interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday afternoon, this immediately jumped out at me:
.........
(Excerpt) Read more at outsidethebeltway.com ...
Ther eis also an extensive speech he gave at and NRA meeting:
2011 NRA Annual Meetings - Herman Cain - Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum
However, both of these are from BEFORE his interview with CNN, and not to be a stickler but the Cain folks have been very viciously attacking people for not using the LATEST speeches available for Cain. So I'm not sure we should provoke them by referencing these OLDER interviews.
More seriously, it is sad that we had to go over a hundred post before someone actually posted a link to something positive about Cain regarding guns. I've asked repeatedly for links, and here I'm giving a link that's more supportive of Cain, and any of them could have found this link.
Still, if you use google search, you'll see that there are just a lot of questions about Cain and the 2nd amendment, and he has not said much about it. the GOA is waiting for his answers to their survey, I presume when he does answer it will probably be what we want to hear. But as the GOA said -- he has NO RECORD, so we really need him to be clear AND detailed.
As to his actual statement in your video, the question isn't given, so you have to imply what it was from his answer. I believe the question was whether he would support a federal law giving citizens the right to concealed carry throughout the country. His response seems to be that each state should be allowed to make their own laws. But it's a 1-minute clip, so it's not very detailed.
Anyway, I disagree with him, and believe he misses the point, if this is truly his answer. My right to bear arms is meaningless if it only applies to travel within my state, or a few other non-contiguous states which I can't reach without going through states that DON'T let me transport my weapon, or else I have to fly where I have to give up my right to have my weapon.
It is clearly within the purview of the federal government to legislate issues that cross state boundaries. Now, I WOULD also say that states should have the right to pass their own MORE PERMISSIVE gun laws for WITHIN their state. But the federal government should define what the "maximum" interference with my rights will be, and that should be to allow me the freedom to drive from one side of this country to another carrying a gun.
I think Cain believes that states should be allowed to interfere with that right, and I disagree. I, a resident of Virginia and a citizen of the United States, should be allowed to BEAR ARMS from here to Texas. If I meet the minimum standards for "reasonable restrictions", that should cover me everywhere.
I am not rejecting out-of-hand specific restrictions that states may wish to impose that wouldn't interfere with my general right to bring a weapon with me where I go. For example, if it was decided that the 2nd amendment allows a state to prohibit guns on church property, that wouldn't be an undue restriction on my transportation of a gun through the state. I only say that to preclude getting bogged down in a discussion of minutae of a topic that I simply haven't thought enough about to GET into such minutae.
Valid points, thanks for the link.
Oh for heaven’s sake! You know, you seem to be such an expert on everything (especially how really, really icky Cain is) then perhaps YOU should run. I’m serious. You hit every single one of these threads. Every single one. We got it. You’re the smartest person here because you’re the only person who never gets anything wrong, who doesn’t have to realize people are human (even Reagan as great as he was) because you certainly wouldn’t make the same imperfect human mistakes that every other person on the planet makes. So you should seriously consider running. Bet your words would be perfect & clear all the time. It’d be just like having Jesus run!
Cindie
You seem to have gotten lost. That statement does not in reflect the comment you are linking to.
Also, I NEVER said anywhere that states have NO right to have any say over weapons.
You have actually crossed two subthreads, so I'll untangle them.
First, this subthread. Your FIRST post to this thread was Post 34, which didn't discuss the topic.
Followed by:
Post 38, also not about the topic, then
Post 49, which was your first response to me, again off-topic and also interjecting yourself into a subthread. Which is OK, but that often gets people confused.
Anyway, at the time you responded to me in post 49, you had made 3 comments in the thread, and ALL were off-topic. I read your response to me in post 49, and responded in Post 114 - Note that I was obviously running a bit behind, but when I typed the response, you had not yet discussed the topic, and I said so.
In post 114, I provided a link to a GOA article from September 30th, to answer your complaint that the original article was too old. That article didn't say anything about state gun restrictions, it was simply saying they didn't know Cain's position on gun issues, and wanted him to answer their survey.
You responded to post 114 with Post 127, the post I'm responding to here, where you talk about asking me questions that blew me away. But note that was NOT the subject of this subthread you were responding to, and of course I hadn't "answered" your question (which you asked in post 95) at the time I was responding to your post 49. I hadn't GOTTEN to your question yet. And obviously my post 114 was not INTENDEND to be a response to your post 145, because it was clearly marked in "reply" to 49.
This is why John Robinson has gone through the trouble of providing the "To xxx" link for EVERY post, so people know what it is in response to. If you had taken the time to look at that, you would have known this was a response to your comment 49, and NOT a response to your comment 95.
OK, so what about your question that you are so proud of? Like I said, that was another thread, but let's drag that in here.
It starts with my Post 75, in which I made the following statement:
CharlesWayneCT: Unless there is an immediate and compelling government interest related to other rights, people should be allowed to have guns for whatever legal reason they want, not just a handgun kept in their house to protect themselves at home.
You responded to that in Post 95, with this question, which I quote in full:
MestaMachine: So you would be just fine with gerald loughner serving some time in an institution, being finally declared ‘sane’ and set free to buy a new toy? How about the Fort Hood shooter? Any reason he couldn’t serve his time and be allowed to have a gun? And before you day those are extreme cases, what YOU are suggesting is that no one should able to control these guys getting weapons...and they are not the only ones. Who maintains the public safety?
Note that your questions are based on a faulty reading of my post, which clearly says some laws would be acceptable, and in fact defines the criteria.
Your question, far from "blew YOUR statement to hell", simply revealed a misunderstanding on your part about the words I wrote.
Which is fine, that's why you SHOULD ask questions, not to win fake debating points that nobody cares about, but to actually seek understanding.
With that in mind, I DID respond to your questions, politely and completely, in Post 150, where I note that your cases would fall under my exceptions clause "Unless there is an immediate and compelling government interest related to other rights"
I further expound in that post about how laws do infringe somewhat on our rights, in order to protect other rights, and then I deal specifically with the issue of concealed carry, which was supposedly the topic Cain was talking about, and explain why I think it's wrong to simply let states decide where I can carry a concealed weapon.
I will note that, at the time I write THIS response, I have received NO replies to that response.
I apologize for this being so long, but your accusation simply had to be answered, and the only way to really do so was to fully lay out what exactly happened, and to that your premise was faulty.
To summarize:
Seems to me you have answered nothing. You made an absolute statement and you cannot back it up.
Your answer to your question is in post 150, not in post 114 which was a reply to your post 49 which was the 3rd off-topic post you made to this thread.
I apologize for post 114 saying you were off-topic. I explain why I did so, but since you HAD made an on-topic post by the time my response was posted, it was incorrect, and so I apologize. But you were wrong to expect that a response to post 49 would contain a response to your post 95 simply because it came AFTER your post. That's why we have the "To xxx" links.
And that statement doesn't make it illegitimate to note that AFTER making that statement, Cain seems to hae said he states have the right to restrict concealed carry. That statement reflects what Cain thinks would NOT be onerous, and it is IMPERATIVE that we discuss what Cain thinks is and is not "onerous".
What the heck are you doing? He’s 100% behind the 2A as he clarified the very next day, and several times subsequently. He was talking about concealed weapons permits. Not the ability for states to ban guns in any way shape or form.
BTW, this article is 6 months old, you might want to remove today’s date from the title.
Cain is far, far more of a constitutionalist than Perry or Newt or Romney. No contest whatsoever.
You may discuss or ignore it
Or I can point out it is off-topic. IF you don't like that, you can discuss or ignore it. Or do anything else you like, realising that we have a rule that posts should be on-topic.
The topic of this thread is Herman Cain and the 2nd amendment. Do you think that the federal government should pass a law giving gun owners the right to travel across the country with their concealed weapons, or do you think that any state should have the right to block a citizen of this country from driving on a federally-funded highway through the state on their way to another state.
And do you know what Cain's position is on that question, and if so, do you have a link to it?
You do realize he was very vocally against Hillarycare don’t you. He’s also a very polite man. What should he have started out with...Hey you oversexed jerk? While this was a while ago I’d say national health care IS a national priority (and has been especially since then because despite the failure of the Clinton admin it’s been a constant drumbeat that finally lead to 0bamacare). We have to repeal 0bamacare and change our perception of what health care should and shouldn’t be. It’s going to take massive reeducation teach people health care IS NOT a right. Cain has understood this for a long time.
I understand you have huge reservations about Cain and that’s just fine but for crap sakes not everything he says or does is for some ulterior motive that makes it necessary to parse every single word he says. Don’t vote for him. Who cares? What does it gain to come on every single Cain thread you find and harp endlessly about him and his lack of (insert whatever sinful faux pas he’s committed THIS time). No one currently supporting Cain isn’t going to be swayed by your arguments. I’d imagine Newt & Perry supporters are the same way. Nothing wrong with that. Of course they aren’t perfect either. At least they all have the guts to put themselves out there on the national stage and serve their country. Unless you can prove you’re perfect then maybe you can allow the rest of us (including the candidates, corporate heads, mothers, accountants, soldiers, grocery store clerks, etc.) to realize we’re human and aren’t going to get it right every single time.
Just because someone is polished as says all the things you want to hear doesn’t mean they’ll live up to those perfect little words.
Cindie
Ironically, your constant reference to thread hijacking sounds just like thread hijacking. It’s a broken record kinda thing.
Cindie
I also find it useful to ask questions, and to attack the "accepted opinions" to see if they are valid, or if they have no foundation.
You’re the smartest person here because you’re the only person who never gets anything wrong
I get things wrong all the time. You learn by getting things wrong, and getting TOLD you are wrong. My goal for a thread would be to come out more informed than I came in. I find that rarely happens on Cain threads because Cain supporters rarely provide responses to the charges against him. A lot of people came into this thread -- if each one had brought a link to ONE speech Cain gave in the past two months addressing the issue of gun control, I'd have learned something.
As it is, I DID learn something, as one freeper kindly posted a link to a campaign talk in April which explained Cain's position a bit more about concealed carry.
I doubt I'm the smartest person here. But don't start comparing college GPA scores. I don't think being "smart" matters much in these types of situations.
who doesn’t have to realize people are human (even Reagan as great as he was) because you certainly wouldn’t make the same imperfect human mistakes that every other person on the planet makes
I do realise people are human. I've defended Perry after all.
So you should seriously consider running. Bet your words would be perfect & clear all the time.
I'd be better as someone's chief of staff. I'm not the "leader" type.
be just like having Jesus run!
Now you are just mocking me. (OK, I know you were pretty much mocking me the entire time.)
So, how do you figure out where a candidate stands on the issues? Did you know before this thread what Cain's position was on a federal concealed carry bill?
Okay so what do you do with a violent ex-felon who’s served his time, finished his probation and thinks “Oh goody, I’m gonna go buy a gun!” Should our society allow that? Because telling him no would be “restricting” gun rights.
Cindie
Okay, I do have to admit you follow along better than most people, myself included. I honestly could never get that much out with references and everything as quickly as you do. (Pardon the thread jack).
Cindie
I expect him to say exactly what he said. But of course, I also expect an elected state official, when writing to Clinton to tell them not to screw over their constituents, to be polite. Which is what Perry did in HIS letter.
My response was to a person who posted a link to Perry’s response, and falsely claimed Perry SUPPORTED hillarycare because he thanked her for dealing with the health care issue. I was just pointing out that Herman Cain did the SAME thing when he addressed Clinton.
I guess the alternative is to hit abuse a dozen times, but that’s not my style really. Anyway, my point is to point out the hijacking, and bring the discussion back on topic. Most of my “off-topic” posts included a discussion of the topic to try to lure those freepers into the conversation.
It’s something they taught us in meeting facilitation. Since in the real world, I’m usually the one dragging conversations off into the nether regions, I thought I’d try my training here. Didn’t work very well, most of those who came here didn’t really want to discuss Cain’s position on guns.
It also serves my own purpose. See, I don’t have a candidate, but I used to feel obligated to defend candidates I liked if they were falsely attacked. Then since the anti-Perry folks were hijacking every political thread with their attacks on Perry, I was spending way too much time answering those attacks again and again.
But I found that if I was in a thread, and an attack was made and I didn’t immediately answer it, someone would start pestering me, like happened in this thread, with those “I asked you a question, why aren’t you responding” posts.
So I decided I would simply stay out of the threads that were posted to attack people I like. That way I can’t be expected to post responses.
But unfortunately, they are still spamming all the other threads. And so I point out that they are off-topic, and that I will NOT be discussing their off-topic remakrs. That way they don’t get to claim that their false charges are “unopposed”.
GIven that a Cain supporter posted links to a 1993 article in this thread, it seems a bit hypocritical to complain about a 6-month old statement from the candidate DURING THIS CAMPAIGN.
Are you really going to hang your argument on that hook, that Cain’s statements from THIS campaign are non-operative if they are more than 4 months old? Or that it is off-limits to discuss what Cain said more than 90 days ago, or if he made a contradictory or “clarifying” statement later?
The nice thing about having NO record is that you can’t ever be accused of “flip-flopping”, especially if whenever you completely change what you are saying, you call it a “clarification” and claim you never believed any different.
With the gun thing, I’ve asked several times for ANY links that are more recent than the interview posted here. Do you have one? If not, isn’t this the operative statement?
And are you saying Cain doesn’t believe anymore what he said here? Unlike most people apparently, I actually DO want to know what Cain’s latest position is. I saw the 4/28 campaign video, and it sure looks like he opposed a federal concealed carry law, and thought states should be able to decide for themselves.
I think that since travel is something that crosses state boundaries, the feds should define the “maximum” restrictions that will be allowed, so that my right to bear arms is not infringed when driving across the country on federal highways.
Do you have ANY links to what Cain’s position is on that issue that are more recent? That would be helpful.
It’s 5:30 am, and we are almost 200 posts in. I don’t think thread jacking is an issue at this point.
There are many skills I do not possess. I just happen to be good at research and collation. I also read very quickly.
And I know a lot of people don’t believe me, but I really DO want to learn, and if I am convinced of something, I WILL change my position, and will change my arguments.
It's an ATTACK to point out the obvious?
What forethinking candidate for POTUS jokes about sexual harassment?
It'll be certain death in the general election. Dems will paint him as the most anti-woman candidate to walk the earth and enough will buy their message to even sweep Pelosi back into the Speaker's chair.
It might sell with some Republicans but it'll be poison if he's the nominee.
Having handed them a nuclear weapon to use against Republicans in the fall of 2012, nominating Cain would be a gift to the Democrats.
This is his campaign, where he has all sorts of people correcting his off-the-cuff mistakes. What would happen if he were president and he did something like confuse states' rights with something that applies to the whole country because it is in the Bill of Rights? He is learning as he goes, MAYBE, because he made this same mistake with abortion. He thought keeping government out of it sounded good until he realized if he was pro-life that wouldn't work. He gets his sound bites all mixed up, and that is because he has been dealing with these issues for about fifteen minutes. I don't think we can afford this. Man the lifeboats.
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.