Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary’s Chute Wasn’t Torn by the Shell Jacker! Great Luck!
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons -- Go Monthly
If you sign up, a sponsor will donate $10
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 ...
Cute Charles, don’t worry your Swiss Ninja status is secure...
If that's all we have to worry about from the Mittbots we got it in the bag eh.
I think you mean LEFTWINGTARDS and people from Idaho, Utah and Souvrn' California or something (and only two of those guys are RINOs ~ and both are running).
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
According to section 2 since i am allowed to carry a gun in the state i am from i can also carry it in the state i go into.
The second amendment guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms.
the tenth amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power of gun control has not been left to the states because the signers of the law has agreed that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed period, not from the states nor the united states, the states are prohibited from making laws contrary to the second amendment, the united states states have the same rules.
Yes?
That leaves us with a big problem, but i would guess that Herman Cain was just not been given time to explain, or did not have time to think about it.
Cain reads it the same way SCOTUS Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito read it, the States have authority to enact reasonable resrtrictions on firearms like permits to carry or discharging in public. This is the Conservative position. If you believe the states do not have such authority, you are far outside of mainstream conservative thinking, more in the realm of libertarians or anarchists.
Excerpts don't need to be that short. Your comments forgot to include this little prefix.
BLITZER: How about gun control?
CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.
B: So what’s the answer on gun control?
C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
Let's not play dirty politics. That's what we despise the most.
What was the Bill of Rights written for, the Federal Government (Congress), the states, or both? Your knowledge or naivete in on the line in answering this question, so be careful.
“Where does it say that in the second amendment?”
The part about where powers not granted to the Federal govt.
Yeh that and the Heller decision which I guess Herman has not read up on. Somebody needs to have a chat with him about that.
“or I can point out it is off topic”
Yes, you may incorrectly point out that it is off topic.
You may also dig into a 6 month old article and debate points that don’t exist any longer lol.
...like you pretend that you were a Palin supporter and that you’re not a Romney supporter.
“my point is to point out hijacking”
Incorrectly.
“I’m the one dragging conversations off into the nether regions”
I’m shocked.
They are also revealing what is in the heart of too many freepers and way too many n00bs. I want to ask these spittlefest ravers if they truly believe their candidate of choice would endorse the rat crap they are spewing around our FR home.
I know that. I was pointing out—indirectly—the incompleteness of your paraphrase.
IOW, Churchill wasn’t suggesting that a pure democracy is better than all the others. I think we agree on that.
:-)
The public safety is protected by armed citizens capable of protecting themselves.
The Fort Hood shooter was shooting at UNARMED victims. No law will ever effectively deprive people like the Fort Hood shooter, whether previously convicted of a felony or not, from obtaining and using deadly weapons against UNARMED victims.
Could you clarify this claim? You make it sound as if any state law which has a "rational basis", would be allowed. What supports such a broad interpretation?
The entire federal FFL system and the existence of the BATFE is built upon the premise that outlawing the possession of firearms by felons is helpful in reducing crime.
Is it? I see no evidence of that.
But I do see evidence of a bureacracy which empowers Kalifornia to implement waiting periods, background checks, fees, gun rosters, and semi-automatic rifle bans which would be virtually impossible to implement if not for the federal system limiting sales of new firearms to licensed dealers in one's state of residence.
My freedom to keep and bear arms has been shredded due to federal infringements.
Let me help you out here:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
My opinion is that this is not an accident, that the Second Amendment is not explicitly just a prohibition against action by Congress. I believe that our Founders would have considered it unthinkable that the states would infringe the right to keep and bear arms of their own citizens.
The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary because the Founders were wrong. The states were capable of infringing the right to keep and bear arms of their own citizens, as citizenship was defined after the Civil War.
The recent McDonald decision would appear to constrain the states such that the only state laws which would be permissible would also be permissible as federal laws. We will have to wait to see how this plays out in the courts.
I agree about Michele being a true conservative. I think Cain would like to be but he just doesn’t have the backstory on so many of these issues. I wonder what kind of hands we would be in with him as president. Our enemies are now taking advantage because Obama is weak and not really on our side. With Cain they would be taking advantage of his incompetence and lack of experience, I am afraid.
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.