BLITZER: Should states or local governments be allowed to the gun situation . . .[gun control]CAIN: Yes
BLITZER: So the answer is yes?
CAIN: Yes. The answer is yes, that should be a states decision.
Yikes! This is worse than not knowing what the right of return means in Mid-East foreign policy.
The Second Amendment right is protected by a fundamental individual liberty that the federal government is supposed to protect. Keeping arms is an individuals right and it is the governments responsibility to protect that right. It is not a state issue. Our rights dont exist based on the consent and good grace of any one state (or all the states), just as they dont exist based on the consent and good grace of the federal government. What Cain should have said is that the proper role of the government, whether state or federal, is to refrain from infringing upon our liberties. States may try and pass legislation but they must be consistent with the US Constitution, and they certainly cant legislate away the Second Amendment.
No question Cain is a funny guy, as he has demonstrated a couple of debates ago in his response to a question, what would he bring to the WH if elected president? and he replied: "I would bring a sense of humor to the White House, because America's too uptight!" Yep, I can imagine how the current state of our economy makes all those unemployed and going through hard times really uptight.
“The Second Amendment right is protected by a fundamental individual liberty that the federal government is supposed to protect.”
It’s also a right to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. If the government takes our arms we as sovereign beings have no way to protect ourself from government cohesion of the most extreme kind. We may not be there yet but we are getting very close to a tipping point.