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/
Sorry, pal. The Second Amendment is NOT dependent on the whims of any particular state legislature. The Bill of Rights is an absolute guarantee of freedoms as God given rights. You need to bone up on your constitution and stop trying to dodge atough question by punting to “the states.”
Looks like you’re just not yet “ready for prime time.”
“It not the President’s job to dictate policy to the State and localities.
Cain, unlike far too many supposed “Conservatives”, understand that separation of powers.”
Then he probably misspoke when he said it was a states’ rights issue, and I don’t fault him on that. He’s human.
Herman strongly states his SUPPORT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT.
He then states his SUPPORT OF INDIVIDUAL STATE GUN CONTROL LAWS.
He is showing determined support for not only 2ND AMENDMENT, but also 10TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!
Cainiacs are aware of his ability to pull 2 issues into 1 answer! We Get It!
Anyone truly interested in Herman Cain would read the entire article, not just 1 1/2 selected lines.
Nice try. Go back and drool over your own candidates now.
Obama's was "community organizer" and 18 months in the Senate.
I know. It'd be nice if our side put up someone with serious experience. I don't know Rick Perry. He gets some rough comments around here, so maybe he's not a good candidate, but if he were to get in, he'd warrant attention just based on his resume. I guess Pawlenty has a decent background, but he just doesn't seem like a president to me.
Supporting the Right while supporting it’s infringement.
Yep, it takes a true politician to be on BOTH sides of an issue...
No thanks. My Rights are non-negotiable. Period.
Even though I agree with you 100%, I cited restrictions that I am 100% confident that the SCOTUS will uphold.
Question: Are you in favor of any restrictions under the 1st Amendment with respect to Freedom of Speech? The way I read the 1st Amendment, the right to free speach is absolute. I don't see any exceptions for so-called fighting words; yelling "fire" in a crowded theater; pornagraphy of any kind; or and other exception.
1) I think it properly applies to Congress. I would accept state control of religion or speech.
2) I would be thrilled if one or more states could outlaw Islam.
3) As written, I think provides no exemptions for hate speech, pornography, etc. -- at the national level.
4) I would support an amendment which allowed Congress to outlaw Islam at the national level.
Yes... if Sarah decides to run.
No. There are "just" laws that touch on harm done to others with various types of arms, but NONE of the "gun control" laws out there are legal.
A sound suppressor? Flash hider? Hi-cap mags? Open carry only? Concealed only? No full auto? Can't carry in certain areas creating victim disarmament zones?
Not a single one Constitutionally legal by a strict reading of the Constitution and backed up by the words of the Founders themselves.
Every court case since then saying anything less is judicial activism. Full stop. End of story.
Your approval of judicial activism is noted.
But a right, no matter its source, can be subject to limitations when it conflicts with the rights of others. A convicted felon's right to self-defense also comes from God. Does that mean no state may deny them a pistol permit? Of course not. And the same goes for someone suffering from mental illness - they also have a right, the exercise of which can be restricted by a government in the interest of public safety.
The right to own and dispose of one's own life and property is also God-given. Does that mean my neighbor can unquestionably build and operate an amusement park next to my house? No, because it would diminish the value of my property and my ability to use it in ways that do not conflict with the right of others to do the same. At the very least, he'd need to apply for a permit. This concept is nothing new - it comes from common law and was assumed by our Founders when they reserved all powers not specifically given to the Federal government to the states or to the people.
My point is that all rights, even those incorporated from the Bill of Rights into state and local law, must not conflict in their exercise with the rights of others - and that is the legitimate purpose of government - to protect citizens' rights,
But thank you for your words in support of the Second Amendment - it needs all the friends it can get.
I’d prefer a two-term governor. Or at least a one-full-term governor. But if Palin runs, she’ll definitely be a contender. Not sure who else is a possible candidate. Perry? I know nothing about that guy.
You are correct. Whereas the 1st amendment say CONGRESS shall make no law, thus giving states some ability to regulate expression ..... the 2nd amendment says right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This would imply that states have limited or zero ability to regulate gun. The SCOTUS also agrees..
As would I. I think Perry is the real deal, but like you, and not yet up to speed.
I forgive Sarah for her resignation. She had a choice, be financially ruined by endless frivolous lawsuits allowed by the state’s legal system — all of which had to be defended via funds out of her own personal pocket, or save her family’s financial viability and resign.
Re: Palin. Forgive, not forgive, doesn’t really matter at this point. It is what it is. If she’s in, she’ll be a player. But we don’t know if she’s in, and I’d like to find another option either way, to at least have another option. And I’d like that someone to have served as governor, and been successfully re-elected.
I’d like to believe that even a rebooted Dan Quale could beat Obama...but I don’t have that much faith in the American people.
Ping me if you think the person you describe throws their hat in, I’d probably hop on that band wagon.
(I think I just ran out of metaphors...thankfully.)
Thank you. It’s good to know I’m not alone in my grasp of “Shall not be infringed”.
The single minset and idiocy of small number of Freepers never cesases to amaze me. A person can make a prediction even though they hope the event they predict never comes true. For example, I am 100% confident that at least ten people in American will die in automobile accidents today. By your flawed logic, I must be in favor of accidental deaths. I am not, of course, just as I am not in favor of judicial activism. But that doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS, with 100% certainty, will rule that state government has the right to impose certain restrictions upon the transfer amd possession of firearms without violating the 2nd Amendment, even though the restrictions don't expressly appear in the 2nd Amendmend. Like it or not, that is the reality and simply recognizing that reality doesn't mean I'm in favor of judicial activism any more than I am in favor accidental deaths.
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.