Posted on 11/11/2011 9:49:00 PM PST by TitansAFC
He didn’t differentiate, so it was an unsophisticated answer. If he had cited SCOTUS and either agreed or disagreed with the decision, that would have shown some familiarity with the subject, but he swung right into his libertarian kneejerk without the background knowledge or skill to give a sound answer.
LOL. And this is supposed to be a defense of Cain? What pray tell are we supposed to go by? What we wish Cain were? If we can even figure out where he stands we are lucky.
Concealed carry ‘enabled’ by legislation (regardless of the process or requirements) is but another restriction on the Second Amendment.
One of the most uncomfortable elements of the Second Amendment, for left leaning quasi-conservatives, is the logical extension of its fundamental tenet that precludes even their ‘common sense’ restrictions.
To apply registration requirements of any sort simply does not pass logical muster, given the language of the Amendment. Likewise, the notion of limiting ‘types’ of firearms is on the same logical quicksand.
“What forethinking candidate for POTUS jokes about sexual harassment?”
Which candidate joked about sexual harassment. Cain joked about Anita Hill voting for him, so it wasn’t Cain. Maybe Perry?
“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.”
That’s why Perry needs to be careful.
“It might sell with some Republicans but it’ll be poison if he’s the nominee.”
Same as above, Perry better watch it.
“Having handed them a nuclear weapon to use against Republicans in the fall of 2012, nominating Cain would be a gift to the Democrats.”
Now you go off-topic. What does Cain have to do with a mistake that Perry made?
“That is helpful for people who are apparently incapable of reading the “date” field. You know there is a date field, where you are supposed to put the date of the article. It’s where most of us look to find what date the article was posted.”
We don’t like people that ABUSE their privileges on this site. Eventually they will, and do, get zotted. We’ve already disposed of half a dozen Perrybots, some dating back over a decade.
“Not only off-topic, but do you actually think the person who posted this article is a Perry supporter? Or is that just the recommended response from the Cain Supporter Handbook?”
Obviously./
“And it’s funny how just a few days ago the Cain people were CHEERING about how there were “TWO ADULTS” in the room, and talking about how great Gingrich was to have a great debate with Cain. But that was before some polls suggested Gingrich might actually be in the race, so I guess now you’ve got to destroy him to. Too bad Cain didn’t know that last week when he had him one-on-one in a debate.”
Newt has more than enough history to destroy himself. If Newt wants to side with Anita Hill, after siding with Pelosi on global warming, that is his right, and we do have the responsibility to point that out.
And yes, Newt did treat Cain MUCH BETTER than Bachman or Sanatorium, who both piled on Cain right from the start. But Newt shifted gears and took a VERY CHEAP shot at Cain, by both comparing Cain’s joke about Hill to children being RAPED at Penn State, and by taking Hill’s side. That is EXACTLY the concern most conservatives have about Newt - you NEVER know when he’ll flake-out. I expressed my concerns about Newt and held back going after him for the Pelosi crap....but Newt simply cannot help it and he cannot handle the exposure. He’s too damn arrogant.
The entire Republican field really is looking like “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight”. God help us.
Herman is walking a tightrope, give him some room.
Remember, Bush 43 said he would sign an AWB if it crossed his desk, I don't believe Herman would.
Name one serious candidate who has a better position on the 2nd Amendment than Cain
All but 2 states have their own constitutional standards regarding self-protection.
A strict constructionist/original intent sort of guy would instantly argue that firearms are subject only to state control ~ and then argue that out within the context of the state constitutions.
To apply the Bill of Rights except for the 9th and 10th amendments directly to the states you have to turn into a mind-numbed, robot-like, knee-jerk Leftwingtard who cr*ps on the Founders intentions.
I think you may have been missing the point of this debate ~
Firearms are a current technique. Used to be swords, knives, chained dogs, cobras on the grounds, trebochet, mangle, ...... a large wall (and so many people think those 12 to 16 ft chain link fences are unsightly and should be banned from residential areas yet they are your first line of defense against armed briggands).
This "right" is not just about firearms.
There's plenty of room for Gingrich AND Cain on the ticket.
Here we go again. Trashed Perry into oblivion and now working on Cain. I guess Newt is next and Romney is the shoo-in....
Why would I need a more recent one, seems digging up months old stuff works for his detractors...
But you have already been schooled by others anyways...
Well I hope you learned in 2008 and have dumped Mitt.
The problem is that ONE of them has to defeat Romney. If the Cain and Gingrich fans are both voting for their guy in a primary, Romney has the RINO vote all to himself.
So calling Cain “unqualified” is not really a solid argument, especially given his resume.
Perhaps “unqualified” is not a bad thing
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.