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/
Cain strongly supports the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment prohibits either the Feds, the States or localities, from regulating guns.
DNC Lapdog Blitzer's follow up question is nonsense in light of Cain's statement in regards to the 2nd Amendment.
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.
Lol.
Mr. Cain is dead wrong.
The Constitution is not a State issue.
I live in Maryland and if it were left to this Commie Democrat State they would outlaw cap pistols, and water guns.
The Federal Government must protect us from Democrat Richard Craniums in State Legislatures.
What a good little campaign bot you are.
Far from it. That question produced the relevant, newsworthy answer from Cain. In short, it demonstrated Cain's ignorance. Which I am sure was Blitzer's aim. Mission accomplished.
I don't doubt that Cain means well. I don't believe he holds a strong view that states should control guns. I just think he got stuck having to answer something about which he was not knowledgable. He's not going to bluff his way into the presidency. Time to move on.
I read the entire article. Unless you have a link to something more, he just shot himself in the foot.
The facts are what they are. I’m far from dogmatic about American politics. If I were, I’d never vote. I’d organize a revolution.
Sorry. Cain’s statement opened the door to the gun grabbers and I really don’t give a d@mn about any intellectual arguments that parse my rights to anyone.
It makes me wonder what else he’ll argue away?
I would love clarification of this statement.
Cain: 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.
Cain: 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.
You are correct. That's what the Federalists had in mind from the start. The 10th amendment/states' rights crowd doesn't understand how our system works.
Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. ......Another happy effect of this prerogative would be its controul on the internal vicisitudes of State policy; and the aggressions of interested majorities on the rights of minorities and of individuals. The great desideratum which has not yet been found for Republican Governments, seems to be some disinterested & dispassionate umpire in disputes between different passions & interests in the State. The majority who alone have the right of decision, have frequently an interest real or supposed in abusing it. In Monarchies the sovereign is more neutral to the interests and views of different parties; but unfortunately he too often forms interests of his own repugnant to those of the whole. Might not the national prerogative here suggested be found sufficiently disinterested for the decision of local questions of policy, whilst it would itself be sufficiently restrained from the pursuit of interests adverse to those of the whole Society?
Madison's Ltr to George Washington, April 16, 1787
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.
Example, say back in 2008, when the race came down to Huckabee, McCain or Romney. The tough choice was to pick one of those three, because one of them was going to be the winner. The pretend, not-real choice was to vote for a fringe, boutique candidate like Paul or Hunter--someone with zero shot. You might as well sit out. It's a waste of time other than making you feel better about yourself.
That's what Cain is. A guy with no shot.
Thank you for playing, Herman. Now go away.
I live ten mile from Tombstone, AZ. Back in the day, they had gun control. We have gun control in Arizona now. It is just sensible gun control. Herman is correct. This should be a state issue. The Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government, primarily, and only those provisions that specifically and directly apply to the states should be recognized.
The fact is, the 2nd Amendment isn't very clearly written.
The fact is, the 2nd Amendment isn't very clearly written.
Bingo sounds like he knows the constitution better then Obama.
B: So what’s the answer on gun control?
So what's the question?
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.