Posted on 05/03/2015 5:45:56 PM PDT by GIdget2004
Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon turned conservative star, has confirmed that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
Carson, who has never run for public office, is expected to be the only high-profile African-American to enter the GOP’s presidential primary as he tries to parlay his success as an author and speaker into a competitive campaign against established politicians.
“I’m willing to be part of the equation and therefore, I’m announcing my candidacy for president of the United States of America,” he said in an interview aired Sunday night by Ohio’s WKRC television station.
He is set to make a more formal announcement during a speech from his native Detroit on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Its a tennet of the left that if you say a thing, the thing is true and anyone contradicting you with fact is an idiot, a liar or hates puppies.
Which is why I maintain 60% of America is clinically insane. And this brain donor proves it with every bass akwards post he makes.
Who would have ever thought FR would condone people posting incremental gun control and allow it to continue.
He’s dead wrong on everything.... which means he will die of old age here : )
Nah, Only until the GOPe shuts it down for allowing the handful of us to speak against them. Remember, Barrys edicts take effect soon.
You are correct as of late. I was speaking to past decades.
I don’t think he will land in the office to which he aspires (could be wrong), but I am not inclined to dismiss his remarks or his efforts as pandering for the sake of political gain. His past is too demonstrative of principle and results to treat him as just another wannabe in the realm of politics.
The principle of disarming American cities because doesn’t like big black guns
There you go again, child.
Whatever sis.
Ever decide how you square the city town issue you have ignored for about 3 hours now?
Oh, there is no question Carson has large, high density populations in mind in the weak quote you bring to your poor defense. It’s just that your assertion that he thinks the Second Amendment is totally non-applicable in those areas is pure, hyperbolic rubbish, just like your assertion he is “afraid of big black guns.” But go ahead and focus on this little red herring of yours and call everyone who disagrees with you a “liberal.” If nothing else it will further solidify your status as a certifiable jerk.
You need Constitution lessons as well as reading comp. WTF do you suppose the word “Abridged” means in relation to his statement, which isn’t weal Mr. Blitzer. It’s whats known as a direct quote.
Because when you take guns of any form away from law abiding people you are in 100% direct conflict to the 2A. When you advocate taking guns owned by law abiding citizens from law abiding citizens, you are advocating against the 2A.
So sorry they never told you that in grade school where many of us learned the basics.
What part of “criminally insane” qualifies as “law abiding citizen” in your book, Kimosabe? If you are ready to advocate for placing semi-automatic weapons in the hands of criminally insane people in large populations, then you are ready to call Dr. Carson an advocate for stripping all urban, law abiding citizens of their weapons. I would expect as much from a Freeper who is as nuanced in thought and expression as a skunk in the application of its smell.
It shows you how much you know about the Constitution. Are you aware the term is “Infringed”, not “Abriged”? Or are you merely posting talking points from your script?
You really are pathetic.
And the kicker is, Carson simply says he “would rather not” see the criminally insane have weapons. He does not even say he would insist on disarming them. Talk about hare, brained, hair-trigger jerk-thought. You epitomize the brainless prattle of low information voters with your bold assertions. Stop trying to prove how conservative you are and try lending an ear to those around you who agree in large part with the same things you do.
So he is willing to INFRINGE on the majority’s rights for safety. Someone mentioned something about people who abandon liberty for safety deserving neither.
Yes, I am aware of the language and how it has been bastardized. That does not help you in making your point, however. Keep raising that flag for firearms in the hands of the criminally insane and see where that lands you in the midst of a free people capable of self-governance.
Ben Carson: “But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.”
“I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated.
However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.”
Sooooo...our gun rights are dependent on what Mr. Carson has no problem with.
Please post where I advocated anything remotely related to that.
Maybe the criminally insane are a majority in your world, but they are not in mine.
Theres that reading comp issue again.
Advocating a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment by default advocates placing firearms into the hands of anybody and everybody anytime, the criminally insane included. That’s where you land yourself with your hard-assed conservatism that calls names. You have essentially accused Dr. Carson of saying the Second Amendment is not applicable in cities, a position he flat out does not make. But, wow! Aren’t we impressed how conservative you are. Let us bend the knee in worship.
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.