Cain: "Yes."
Questioner: "Yes?"
Cain: "Yes."
Questioner: "So the answer is yes?"
Cain: "The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision."
An article from June?
A comment later clarified?
Really?
This is what the anti Cain crowd is down to?
Well you pitch the balls you got...
Ok, I see don’t bother you with the facts. Very well.
Cain is so unqualified to be President!!! God help us all if he wins.
Mr.Cain has at least hundreds of thousands of supporters who “get” what he says about the 2nd Amendment vs. local gun laws. I don’t understand the problem.
When a Repub is on with Wolf Blitzhead or some other left cable show he’s being watched mostly by an audience that is far-left to centrist at best.
I discount all those appearances, I don’t even watch them.
That’s the politician dance that has to be danced.
With how much left-wing virtual ballot-box-stuffing that goes on by left-wingers “driving people to the polls” on election day, if a Repub can go on CNN and babble something that will confuse people into voting for them then it’s served it’s purpose, IMHO.
Perhaps that’s not a pure-as-the-driven-snow principles way of getting elected, but if a candidate stood up and publicly stated that they were actually going to eliminate every lobbyist-backed agenda, 80% of the Executive Branch, ALL aid to states, make big business actually compete (and mean it) etc., etc., they would not make it past the first primary. They would sound like they were taking a chainsaw to the favorite spending of 70% of the population.
Once they’re elected, like Obama, they will have to renege on whatever the promised the CNN audience and get the chainsaw going. And go back on the deals they made with government contracting companies, green companies, pharmaceuticals, financials, etc., etc., the list almost never ends, in the first two years. Abolish the EPA, ATF, DOEd, another list. They can simply leave the taxation scheme exactly the way it is. By the time the mid-term election comes along, business will be hiring again at a good clip, people will be starting to get money in their pockets from working, and housing and debt problems start getting fixed.
IMHO, if Herman tells CNN that he’s anti 2nd Amendment, I’d be willing to bet he’s really not. Mittens on the other hand, we have his record to know that he’ll take a ride on the liberal bandwagon any time he’s invited.
That’s really what’s hurt Michele. She sticks to principles no matter who she talks to so she scared the bejeebies out of the left and they kneecapped her early on so there’d be not even a chance of her getting elected. Many conservatives in polling stopped supporting her because they thought she couldn’t handle the pressure. I guess we’re chalking that up to experience and we’re not going to let go of Cain like that. I know I’m not. I know it’s gonna be terrible if we get a career-politician Republican President. The left will convince the centrists that conservative principles don’t work (of course the career-politician won’t be using them, but instead a weakly-negotiated compromise of lower spending increases).
These spats between camps are only helping Obama.
Ouch! THAT is going to leave a mark.
If this is legit, Cain is going to be busy trying to unscrew this issue now.
I have seen Mr. Cain address the “gun control” issue several times. He does not have any desire to take away our guns. He has stated that local governments and states should be the entities responsible for “gun control”. I do not consider that statement to indicate anything negative about his position on our second amendment rights.
My wife and I do not want violent felons to be on the streets with firearms. I don't know any responsible gun owners who want criminals on the streets with the ability to shoot up our communities. We want our local authorities to be able to regulate firearms. I realize that there are those who think that they would prefer no regulation on firearms at all. We have collector friends who legally own weapons that in the wrong hands could be used with devastating effect. I don't want tanks, artillery pieces, and machine guns in the hands of criminals. I doubt whether any of our Republican candidates want that.
Trying to twist Mr. Cain's comments on firearms is wrong.
"HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIULIANI: Yes..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't see the words "or any State" in the language of the Second Amendment as I do in other amendments. Since it is the "US Constitution" unless stated otherwise, it applies solely to the federal government.
Most states have emulated the US Constitution by using similar construction including preserving gun rights.
Any state or city that has banned or restricted guns has proven that it's not a good idea by virtue of their crime statistics.
I am not opposed to States controlling certain aspects of gun ownership. For example, I think the state has a right to keep deviants, criminals, mentally deficient people from owning weapons.
I do not support anything beyond a reasonable check on lawful citizens, who should then have unfettered freedom to carry as they deem fit.
Since the 2nd Amendment confirms our right to bear arms, I do not support the Federal Government having ANY say whatsoever with respect to gun ownership, period. 2A is a restraining order on the Fed.