Posted on 06/08/2011 9:38:03 AM PDT by curth
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.
B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…
C: Yes
B: Yes?
C: Yes.
B: So the answer is yes?
C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.
Video here:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/06/08/cain-gun-control-should-be-a-states-decision/
Precisely right. If Cain sincerely changes, we should be able to tell over the next year, and I am happy to forgive an innocent error. If not, then he's not one of mine and good riddance. I'll actually forgive even one of "theirs" on things like Obama's "my Muslim faith" and his "57 states" but not on his anti-Constitution actions, just as I'll forgive Cain on this, maybe, but I'll never forgive Romney on RomneyCare. The difference between casual errors in actions or statements and thoughtfully considered bad choices is decisive.
The power to disarm free persons is forbidden by the Second Amendment to all lawful governments within the United States of America.
You are under the impression that the writers of the 2nd amendment would have approved CCW permits.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do people not understand?
I consider the need of a CCW an infringement.
Well, we have a long time to go yet. There will be much to fight over. As to Obama, his “my Muslim faith” and “57 states” have too much factual base to ever disregard.
Thanks B4Ranch. - and WHERE you may carry too. Texas was working on CC at colleges and there has been an uproar. I haven’t kept up on it recently.
As to SCOTUS, may be best when they’re not involved anymore.
>>The fact is, the 2nd Amendment isn’t very clearly written.
>
>Only to those with a room temp IQ or possibly English as a second language.
It does not help that the well-known version has so many commas in it; the version that was ratified had only a single comma and reads:
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.
This version is far less confusing to those without a VERY good grasp on commas; and it is precisely that poor-grasp that the common Citizen
has that is exploited to justify contra-constitutional restrictions on firearms.
It's like teaching a pig to sing. It never works and it annoys the pig.
Good day to you, little piggy.
>>Requiring licensing and training is an infringement. Period.
Hm, I slightly disagree; but only as a matter of semantics.
Imagine, for a moment, that a State were to pass a law REQUIRING every male head-of-household (or militia-man) to own a rifle.
Such law CANNOT infringe upon the keeping and bearing of arms (unless, perhaps, it were a felony*).
Also imagine, for a moment, that the State had a law which said:
All members of the militia shall be trained to such-and-such proficiency in the use of their rifle.
This would be a law requiring training, yet would not be an infringement.
* only since felonies became disqualifies for owning weapons; also, the “qualification” prescribed could be so onerous as to
bankrupt even the most enthusiastic of well-off firearm owners.
None of which are in accordance with the Second Amendment. Regardless of judicial "incorporation".
No Kidding! It is truly sick.
Let us consider ND for a moment.
Art 1, Sec 1 of their State Constitution says:
All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.
And Sec 20 of the same:
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.And here's the laws they have concerning concealed arms:
(Per Wikipedia)
North Dakota is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry. The North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) shall issue a concealed weapon permit to a qualified applicant. The applicant must pass a written exam and submit an application to the local law enforcement agency, which conducts a local background check before forwarding the application to the BCI. The permit is valid for three years. A concealed weapon permit is required when transporting a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Concealed carry is not allowed in an establishment that sells alcoholic beverages or in a gaming site. Concealed carry is also not allowed, unless permitted by local law, at a school, church, sporting event, concert, political rally, or public building.
Yep,I suppose he also thinks free speech is up to the states.
Again, this is a matter of principle. I know what the law is and I vehemently disagree.
No!
They have the responsibility to prosecute you [for attempted murder / manslaughter].
They have the right to kill you, should you be found guilty by a jury (for a capital crime).
But in no wise do they have the right to prevent you from committing a crime; a responsibility, it could be argued, but not a right.
A right to prevent you from committing a crime would necessarily include the authority to prevent you from doing so; that is
the reason that people think "the government shouldn't allow assault-rifles/sniper-rifles/silencers/high-capacity magazines/etc."
Who said anything about a draft?
And to consider membership in the militia (most states define it similar to “males 18 to 45 not prohibited by federal law”) as being involuntary servitude is to deny one of THE primary reasons for the State: the defense of the Citizens and their property against foreign invasion.**
Things may yet come to the point where States will use a draft to get the people they need to deal with the illegal immigrant invasion; not that it is very likely at this point... but with the mexican drug-cartels moving ever northward it is likely only a matter of time before whether or not you like it the States find themselves battlefields.
** — The States, and the Federal government, are failing in-spades on this level when in comes to the Judiciary; the recent USSC allowance of states to mandate citizenship/residential-alien status it by-far the best news on the judicial front I’ve heard in a long while. The legislative seems to be growing more and more anti-illegal immigrant; I think this is because the People are getting VERY tired of illegal aliens being treated better than Citizens by the Judiciary & Executive. The Executive, federally, is woefully absent from its duties; and the executive in the States vary greatly. (I found it to be a good sign that NM Gov. Martinez has taken many “anti illegal” steps; such as rescinding the policy which forbade State Patrol from investigating citizenship status when pulling someone over.)
Compulsory military service by any other name is still involuntary servitude.
WTF?
So if an individual state says freedom of speech is to be curtailed, that is okay too?
A politician either supports the 2A en total or they do not.
The 2A is a good litmus test for any politician. If they are willing to trample on that, they will be more than willing to trample on other rights too.
The 2A is the LAW OF THE LAND.
WHat is so difficult to understand about this?
States cannot choose to restrict the 1A, nor the 2A.
>>Who said anything about a draft?
>
>Compulsory military service by any other name is still involuntary servitude.
I see; though I do think that there is a huge difference when the state’s existence (and therefore your own Citizenship) is in question...
on the one hand to sit back and allow the state to be overrun because “compulsory military service [...] is still involuntary servitude” would be to surrender the very Citizenship that prevents you from being put into involuntary servitude; and, on the other hand, if the State abuses its militia the militia CAN violently overthrow it.
And on that same note, is compulsory service on a jury ALSO involuntary servitude?
(Granted the system is now so screwed up that virtually anyone who wants off can get off and very likely biased AGAINST anyone who wants on.)
>States cannot choose to restrict the 1A, nor the 2A.
What’s sad is this idea of incorporation that’s floating around:
Consider the 1st Amendment it restricts the CONGRESS from certain things; yet through the “magic” of incorporation ‘congress’ turns into ‘legislature’
when applied to the states... if such a textual (meaning-wise) transformation can be done then how can we be sure that the Constitution says what it does?
We cannot; and by this method the Judiciary appoints itself as a collection of Black-Robed god-Kings...
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.