I'm not a purist, and hardly a holy man. Moreover, I don't expect any candidate to match my every single stinking thought. But, I have two fundamental expectations of any person running for office, be it in the executive, legislative or (where judges are elected), the judicial branch. 1. That individual must support the right to life. If they don't, they philosophically communicate that every life is subject to the whims of government, and 2. They must unabashedly support the right of the individual to possess the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.
An anti-gun pol is either ignorant of the studies and statistics that overwhelmingly show the beneficial effects of an armed populace and ignorant of the historic and philosophical underpinnings of the Second Amendment, or they are perfectly aware of such things, and their desire to disarm the populace springs from far more insidious motives to concentrate power in the hands of government and foster dependence. Any anti-gun politician falls into one of those two categories: ignorant or malevolent. Sorry, but we already have more than enough of both types in offices throughout the land. Not going to give my vote to help elect one more. I would give Carson the benefit of the doubt and presume he falls into the ignorant category. If he educates himself in this area, and convinces me that he fully grasps the import of the Second Amendment, I could vote for him, but I would need to believe it was a true conversion and embrace.
You could have the right, but not be wise to use it. The question he is actually answering is whether it would be WISE to have a high-penetration weapon in the city. Probably not. And if you used it anyhow and the bullet went into the next apartment and killed someone, don’t cry about the repercussions.
Excellent post.
Never trust any politician who does not trust you to own guns. Period.