Okay, the article is about three subjects, one that speaks to Carson’s “ethical” concerns.
Please.
Carson is not a contender, so let’s stop ripping him new rectal cavities.
But he's an "attractive distractor" (with no voting record and no attempt to be elected to a position where we can see how he'd vote), to keep constitutional conservatives from focusing on viable, proven candidates.
"Won't get fooled again"....if we end up with someone without a voting history, we've lost before the election even happens.
The real question should be, "Would he push his thoughts on the People, or would he support and defend the Constitution?"
Thoughts and opinions are just that until one decides to pull an Obama and foist them off outside of the law of the land. I don't care about someone's thoughts on some issues as long as that person is willing to uphold the Constitution.
“Carson is not a contender, so let’s stop ripping him new rectal cavities.”
Oh, come on, where have you be the last six months? He’s been constantly shilling for himself and i somehow keep getting spam advertising him as a great candidate.
Going to the Second Amendment, the man’s shown himself to be clueless, starting with the Martin/Zimmerman case where, without the slightest basis in the evidence or the law, he announced that Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter. Now he’s showing himself to be even more of a fool, saying police should shoot perps in the legs instead of aiming for center mass. Military and police instruction always emphasizes that, when you have to shoot, you shoot for center mass. Carson’s clearly not ready for prime time.