Cain flunks the gun rights test.
Although Cain says he supports the Second Amendment, in the next breath he says he fully supports any and all state gun control/prohibitions.
That is like supporting federal rights for women and blacks, but allowing women and blacks to be slaves if the state laws permit them to be slaves.
I will not support any candidate who allows, and favors, individual states to outlaw guns, to take away womens voting rights, to allow slavery, to prohibit free speech.
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Cain/Gun-Control.php
In other words you do not support the main tenet of all conservatism - STATES RIGHTS!
That is what you are saying, and in doing so you are also misrepresenting Cain’s position on the second amendment. Cain was perfectly in line with his core beliefs in saying that any gun control legislation should be done at the state level as long as it is within the confines of the Second Amendment.
Cain is an ardent supporter of States Rights and this position is perfectly aligned with that.
Well it really depends on what we are talking about, but for me I rather my state legislature decide things like:
Should a convicted felon be allowed to own a gun?
Should crimial possion of a gun on the grounds of a school or other public facility be an aggravated circumstance.
How close to a private dwelling should a person be allowed to dischange a firearm?
Should a person with a history of mental illness be allowed to own or buy guns?
And I can think of a plenty of others I bet even you can.
For me personally as I said I rather have the local legislature decide things like this. If they are wrong I have a far better and greater chance of getting it set right locally, than having to deal with Washington. And even if that doesn’t work one can always go to the Supreme Court as gun rights activist did in Chicago and Washington DC.
YOU LIE
Herman Cain is 200% pro 2nd Amendment. What he said in the Blitzer interview (mentioned on that link you posted) was taken to mean that he believed states could overrule the 2nd amendment. He does not believe that and he explains here:
(at the 10:17 mark) I strongly support the 2nd amendment. I said that some things should be left up to the states, for example, if the states want to require background checks, let the states decide that. But I did not in ANY WAY mean states had a right to restrict access to owning firearms. So that was the misunderstanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOUF1Hug0JI
You wrote:
“Although Cain says he supports the Second Amendment, in the next breath he says he *fully* supports *any and all* state gun control/prohibitions.”
In contrast stand the facts of what he actually said, in context:
BLITZER: All right. Let’s talk about gun control. Do you support any gun control?
CAIN: I support the Second Amendment.
BLITZER: So you don’t — so what’s the answer on gun control?
CAIN: The answer on gun control is I support strong — strongly support the Second Amendment. I don’t support, you know, onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
BLITZER: Should states or local governments be allowed to control the gun situation? Or should...
CAIN: Yes.
BLITZER: The answer is yes?
CAIN: The answer is yes. That should be a state’s decision.