Dr. Ben Carson: Your right to own a semiautomatic should depend on where you live

posted at 3:21 pm on March 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via the Right Scoop and Mediaite, a point of divergence from conservative orthodoxy by CPAC’s newest scheduled speaker. The urban/rural distinction was actually a key part of Breyer’s dissent in the Heller case five years ago that established an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment:

[H]andguns are not only popular tools for crime, but popular objects of it as well: the FBI received on average over 274,000 reports of stolen guns for each year between 1985 and 1994, and almost 60% of stolen guns are handguns… Department of Justice studies have concluded that stolen handguns in particular are an important source of weapons for both adult and juvenile offenders. Ibid.

Statistics further suggest that urban areas, such as the District, have different experiences with gun-related death, injury, and crime, than do less densely populated rural areas. A disproportionate amount of violent and property crimes occur in urban areas, and urban criminals are more likely than other offenders to use a firearm during the commission of a violent crime… Homicide appears to be a much greater issue in urban areas; from 1985 to 1993, for example, “half of all homicides occurred in 63 cities with 16% of the nation’s population.”… One study concluded that although the overall rate of gun death between 1989 and 1999 was roughly the same in urban than rural areas, the urban homicide rate was three times as high; even after adjusting for other variables, it was still twice as high… And a study of firearm injuries to children and adolescents in Pennsylvania between 1987 and 2000 showed an injury rate in urban counties 10 times higher than in nonurban counties…

Finally, the linkage of handguns to firearms deaths and injuries appears to be much stronger in urban than in rural areas. “[S]tudies to date generally support the hypothesis that the greater number of rural gun deaths are from rifles or shotguns, whereas the greater number of urban gun deaths are from handguns.”… And the Pennsylvania study reached a similar conclusion with respect to firearm injuries—they are much more likely to be caused by handguns in urban areas than in rural areas.

Citations omitted. I’m a bit surprised that Democrats haven’t made more of urban/rural logic on guns, punctuated by the federalist approach that Carson endorses here. Obama and Biden pay lip service to it, periodically reassuring rural gun owners that no one wants to take away their hunting rifle or shotgun, but that argument’s hard to swallow when they’re pushing blanket bans on certain weapons nationwide from the seat of power in D.C. The smarter approach would be for O to declare that he doesn’t believe in a one-size-fits-all solution on guns and then call on Democrats to agitate for bans at the city and state level. That would kill some of the conservative pushback to gun control — most red-staters would have little to fear — while letting city dwellers live out their fondest confiscatory fantasies. There would be limits, obviously; the point of the Heller decision is that not even cities can ban handguns outright. But there are still a lot of blanks in Heller that will be filled in by federal courts over the next decade or two in terms of which weapons, precisely, can be regulated. Liberal energy would be better spent convincing cities to limit permissible handguns to revolvers than trying to put a dent in the country’s inventory of hundreds of thousands of AR-15s. After all, we’re already past the point of anyone besides Piers Morgan seriously believing that a new assault-weapons ban will prevent mass shootings. If you’re inclined to grab guns capable of doing lots of damage, you should be focused on semiautomatics generally rather than on scary-looking rifles that resemble M-16s. And the only way you’ll make a dent there is by stepping back from your national ambitions and respecting urban/rural differences on this subject.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 12:13 AM

.
Pretty much everybody who was involved in writing our founding documents believed in some variety of the Christian God. If they wanted the government to be a values policeman that enforced the tenets of the New Testament, they would have codified that in the Constitution. As it stands, the government has no business policing marriages, or telling people what they can eat or drink, or what they can smoke, or what they should believe scientifically.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 12:18 AM

.
They couldn’t “codify it into the Constitution”, because they (and myself) opposed a ‘Theocracy’.

But they definitively legalized the PUBLIC (that’s the key word) recognition of God, without demanding it.
If any non-Christian were offended by seeing or hearing the PUBLIC practice of Christianity, then it “sucked to be them”.
They couldn’t demand that Christian believers take their Christian practices behind closed doors, so that they could walk anywhere outside without being offended.

But then comes the “Counter-Culture Movement”, which really began when the Supreme Court ruled against PUBLIC practices and displays of Christianity.

Those SCOTUS rulings need to be over-thrown and reversed.

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM

bluefox on March 5, 2013 at 12:55 AM

The fact that the establishment was aware of her accomplishments was indeed a reason they didn’t want her to continue to succeed. This is one of those cases where I will be more than happy to be wrong, she has surprised me before.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM

There’s a vast difference between Christianity being practiced/praised in public and the government being the shepherd of Christian morality.

I agree with overturning things like the Lemon test.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM

And you’re right, social issues are costly. See: Drugs, War On. Tons of money wasted for no good reason.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 12:54 AM

Single mothers are FAR more costly.

Drug war $15 billion/year

Single Mothers $112 billion/year

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM

Dire Straits on March 5, 2013 at 12:51 AM

Yeah, he’s a real uniter alright.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:01 AM

Single mothers are FAR more costly.

Drug war $15 billion/year

Single Mothers $112 billion/year

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM

Yeah, and what exactly is the small government way to get rid of single mothers?

I think we’re well past the event horizon on no-fault divorces and such.

Besides, that 112 billion also covers costs that would be incurred even if a father was present.

Meanwhile, it’d be easy to stop fighting the war on drugs and cut 15 billion in a flash.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:03 AM

The Kennedy’s isn’t what I would call a persuasive argument. sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 12:53 AM

I know but you at least have to give it to the Bush family that they managed not to self destruct. They are at least very admirable people.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Yeah, he’s a real uniter alright.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:01 AM

Being a uniter is overrated. Dubya was “a uniter, not a divider,” and he ended up being hated by most of this country.

I’m glad being sane and consistent, even if that makes me a “divider.” It’s not my job to be your or sharrukin’s apologist, Cindy.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:05 AM

There’s a vast difference between Christianity being practiced/praised in public and the government being the shepherd of Christian morality.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM

You can’t really separate the Christian society the founders grew up in, and Christian beliefs they ascribed to from what they brought to the table when they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:05 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Well at least Jeb is a Republican. I’m interested in why you don’t like him as a nominee.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:06 AM

Like I said, you don’t care about financial issues at all. You only care about politics like it’s a baseball game and social issues.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 12:07 AM

Yes, it is a baseball game. I want us to be the Yankees, and for some reason you think it’s better for us to be the Cubs.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:05 AM

I’m not anyone’s apologist, no one needs one. Including you.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM

I’m glad being sane and consistent, even if that makes me a “divider.” It’s not my job to be your or sharrukin’s apologist, Cindy.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:05 AM

I don’t see her acting as anyone’s apologist, myself included, nor do I see myself needing one.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:08 AM

The cancer of the Democratic party is the same cancer of the Republican party. They are both doing the same thing.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 12:03 AM

No, they’re not. TARP isn’t the same as Stimulus and Stimulus 2. Medicare Part D isn’t the same as Obamacare. Wanting to extend the AWB but not being able to isn’t the same as presiding over Fast and Furious.

It’s all a zero sum game, sharrukin. There’s two options: winning or losing. You want to keep losing, go haead.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM

Medicare Part D was a massive expansion of government into healthcare. They are cut from the same cloth.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM

A divot is cut from the same cloth as the Grand Canyon. That doesn’t make them equivalent.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:11 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:05 AM

I think history will be kinder to W, four years of Obama has done a lot for him already.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:12 AM

They are at least very admirable people.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Who cares? I thought you said it didn’t matter.

Debt is debt, no matter how classy or boorish the people that got us there are.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:12 AM

Yeah, and what exactly is the small government way to get rid of single mothers?

I think we’re well past the event horizon on no-fault divorces and such.

Besides, that 112 billion also covers costs that would be incurred even if a father was present.

Meanwhile, it’d be easy to stop fighting the war on drugs and cut 15 billion in a flash.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:03 AM

This is why it’s hard to take you seriously on fiscal issues. Your social agenda always trumps the money issue. Free drugs (what could go wrong with that?), but lets just ignore the $112 billion dollar elephant in the room.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:12 AM

But then comes the “Counter-Culture Movement”, which really began when the Supreme Court ruled against PUBLIC practices and displays of Christianity.

Those SCOTUS rulings need to be over-thrown and reversed.

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM

I have wanted to read Mark Levin’s book “Men in Black”, but haven’t done so yet. He spoke some of the S.C. in Liberty or Tyranny, which I have read.

bluefox on March 5, 2013 at 1:12 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM

They may not be the same but they still shouldn’t have happened. You don’t take a failing program and add to it. You don’t ignore current laws on finance and bankruptcy because there is no too big to fail. All these things are building blocks for more abuses.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:14 AM

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:01 AM

Sorry..No harm was meant..:)

PS..Good evening..:)

Dire Straits on March 5, 2013 at 1:14 AM

No, they’re not. TARP isn’t the same as Stimulus and Stimulus 2. Medicare Part D isn’t the same as Obamacare. Wanting to extend the AWB but not being able to isn’t the same as presiding over Fast and Furious.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM

Sure. Republican massive overspending is completely different than those evil Democrat’s massive overspending. Completely different!!11!!

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:15 AM

I think history will be kinder to W, four years of Obama has done a lot for him already.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:12 AM

Perhaps, but most of the history writers are still fairly liberal.

Well at least Jeb is a Republican. I’m interested in why you don’t like him as a nominee.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:06 AM

I don’t think another Bush can win at the national level until Dubya’s name is cleaned of all the dirt heaped on it for the past 13 years.

Of course, you’d think Democrats would have the same problem with Hillary, but for some reason they don’t seem to care.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:16 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:12 AM

I didn’t like the amnesty that Pres. Reagan gave and I didn’t agree with turning over the Panama Canal. I can disagree with people (like you) without thinking they are horrible or had ill intent. You take all this far to personally.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:16 AM

bluefox on March 5, 2013 at 12:55 AM

The fact that the establishment was aware of her accomplishments was indeed a reason they didn’t want her to continue to succeed. This is one of those cases where I will be more than happy to be wrong, she has surprised me before.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM

I think there may be truth in both of our opinions actually. Hopefully, someday we will know more.

bluefox on March 5, 2013 at 1:18 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:16 AM

Yep, I agree with all of that. Add to it the way the media would handle it while completely ignoring how they loved it when every new Kennedy ran for public office, it’s enough to make my head explode.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:18 AM

Sure. Republican massive overspending is completely different than those evil Democrat’s massive overspending. Completely different!!11!!

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:15 AM

Here, let me try this as a syllogism:

A. A Hershey bar is made of atoms.
B. Jupiter is made of atoms.
C. Jupiter is a Hershey bar.

Now let’s insert your argument in place of that:

A. Republicans raised our debt with bad policies
B. Democrats raised our debt a ton more with worse policies
C. Republican policies are the same as Democrat policies

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:18 AM

A. Republicans raised our debt with bad policies
B. Democrats raised our debt a ton more with worse policies
C. Republican policies are the same as Democrat policies

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:18 AM

Sorry but it doesn’t work. Bush overspent more money than any president in history…until Obama took the title. That doesn’t make Bill Clinton a budget warrior. They are all spending money the nation doesn’t have. As a conservative I want to go in the other direction.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:23 AM

This is why it’s hard to take you seriously on fiscal issues. Your social agenda always trumps the money issue. Free drugs (what could go wrong with that?), but lets just ignore the $112 billion dollar elephant in the room.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:12 AM

Because it’s not the elephant in the room.

First of all, it’s not a blanket issue. Not all single mothers are equal.

Secondly, like I said, it encompasses costs that would be also be incurred in two parent homes. It’s not an apples to apples comparison with something like the War on Drugs.

Thirdly, there’s no easy small government answer to the problem of single mothers. There are two pretty easy small government answers to the War on Drugs:

A. Stop fighting it, period.

B. Leave it to the states and let federalism do its job.

And on the drug issue, you’re starting to sound like a Democrat. OMG, something could go wrong with allowing more freedom? Well, we can’t let that happen. Think of the children! We should probably go ahead and ban guns and liquor, too; wouldn’t want anything to go wrong, now would we?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:23 AM

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM

.
There’s a vast difference between Christianity being practiced/praised in public and the government being the shepherd of Christian morality.

I agree with overturning things like the Lemon test.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM

.
From the founding of the country, until post-WWII, there were laws on the books making sodomy, adultery, fornication, and pornography against the law.
.
If you’re stating that you disagree with those kind of laws, then that’s where we disagree.

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 1:26 AM

You can’t really separate the Christian society the founders grew up in, and Christian beliefs they ascribed to from what they brought to the table when they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:05 AM

A lot of people with a lot of terrible ideas grew up in Christian societies. It’s not the government’s job to enforce adherence to Christianity.

Like I said to listens2glenn, things like Lemon v. Kurzberg are another issue altogether. I have no problem with the 10C on a courthouse wall, and if the QB wants to lead his team in Christian prayer before the homecoming game, he should be allowed to.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:27 AM

OMG, something could go wrong with allowing more freedom?

Using meth or heroin isn’t freedom.

Well, we can’t let that happen. Think of the children! We should probably go ahead and ban guns and liquor, too; wouldn’t want anything to go wrong, now would we?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:23 AM

Ann Coulter was right. Pot and gay marriage 24/7, and the fiscal issue is used as a cheap dodge.

$4.9 trillion dollar Bush…that’s fine.
$112 billion for single mothers…oh well.

$15 billion drug war…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:28 AM

Dire Straits on March 5, 2013 at 1:14 AM

Almost missed your reply. Please don’t apologize, B-Plus and Dire Straits have just as much right to their opinion as anyone else here.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:28 AM

From the founding of the country, until post-WWII, there were laws on the books making sodomy, adultery, fornication, and pornography against the law.
.
If you’re stating that you disagree with those kind of laws, then that’s where we disagree.

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 1:26 AM

If you want to make a case for those laws, I’ll need a better reason than “we used to have them.” We also used to have segregation and a lot of other really bad policies.

But yeah, for the most part we disagree. Pornography is a 1st Amendment Issue to me, so yeah, I disagree with blanket anti-pornography laws.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:30 AM

Ann Coulter was right. Pot and gay marriage 24/7, and the fiscal issue is used as a cheap dodge.

$4.9 trillion dollar Bush…that’s fine.
$112 billion for single mothers…oh well.

$15 billion drug war…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:28 AM

I’m straight and I don’t smoke pot, but keep ****ing that chicken.

Using meth or heroin isn’t freedom.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:28 AM

Being able to do something without intrusion from the government is actually the definition of freedom.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:34 AM

The number you keep using is based on an awful lot of assumptions:

Scafidi’s calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes. The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351300,00.html#ixzz2Me1sDwCv

Again, you’ve failed to address the fact that many of these costs would still be incurred if the parties in question were married.

And I’ve yet to hear the small government solution. Outlaw all divorces? Force people to stay married by government fiat? Outlaw sex outside of marriage?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:37 AM

Sorry but it doesn’t work. Bush overspent more money than any president in history…until Obama took the title. That doesn’t make Bill Clinton a budget warrior. They are all spending money the nation doesn’t have. As a conservative I want to go in the other direction.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:23 AM

The only way to go in the other direction is to elect more Republicans. Even if there’s only a 1% chance of a GOP-run Senate, House and WH actually cutting spending, that’s better than the 0.00% chance we’ve got under the auspices of a Democrat-run Senate and WH.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:39 AM

From the founding of the country, until post-WWII, there were laws on the books making sodomy, adultery, fornication, and pornography against the law.

If you’re stating that you disagree with those kind of laws, then that’s where we disagree.

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 1:26 AM

.
If you want to make a case for those laws, I’ll need a better reason than “we used to have them.” We also used to have segregation and a lot of other really bad policies.

But yeah, for the most part we disagree. Pornography is a 1st Amendment Issue to me, so yeah, I disagree with blanket anti-pornography laws.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:30 AM

.
I believe you have brought us “full circle”. Re-posting:
.

If government, and the laws they enact don’t give recognition to God, then we’re going nowhere.
The moral standards of “right and wrong” laid out in the Christian Bible give rise to more liberty, not less.
We’re losing all of our “positive freedoms” (my definition, not the Presidents) over the practice of hedonistic behavior of all kinds.
The HIV virus exists because of unbridled sodomy.
Responsibility and hedonism are mutually exclusive.
The “positive freedoms” (as I define them) demand more responsibility on the part of the “practitioner” than the hedonistic Americans are willing to bear.
That’s why we’re almost losing the Second Amendment, among others.

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 12:13 AM

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 1:40 AM

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 1:40 AM

Sorry, I just don’t agree. If I want to give recognition to God, that’s my business, but it’s not the government’s business.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:43 AM

The only way to go in the other direction is to elect more Republicans. Even if there’s only a 1% chance of a GOP-run Senate, House and WH actually cutting spending, that’s better than the 0.00% chance we’ve got under the auspices of a Democrat-run Senate and WH.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:39 AM

No actually a 1% chance isn’t better than no chance at all.

No chance at all would require facing up to the truth. A ghost of a chance leaves the empty illusion that something might be done when it really won’t be.

sharrukin on March 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:28 AM

+ 100..:)

Dire Straits on March 5, 2013 at 1:57 AM

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 1:40 AM

.
Sorry, I just don’t agree. If I want to give recognition to God, that’s my business, but it’s not the government’s business.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:43 AM

.
I understand, and I don’t hold that against you.

I don’t believe those fore mentioned laws constitute an imposition on your (or anyone else’s) right to reject “recognition of God.”

It is my contention that the negative impact on society by practicing what those laws forbid, is “self evident”, and doesn’t require the Christian Bible to prove it.

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 1:57 AM

Dire Straits on March 5, 2013 at 1:14 AM

.
Almost missed your reply. Please don’t apologize, ‘ B-Plus and Dire Straits have just as much right to their opinion as anyone else here.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 1:28 AM

.
Everyone should have a right to my opinion, as well.
.
. . . . . . . . . . What ? !

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 2:07 AM

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 2:07 AM

They do have the right to your opinion, they just don’t have to agree with it.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 2:09 AM

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 2:07 AM

I am glad to see you have a Model 12 Winchester in your family..I am equally blessed..:)

Dire Straits on March 5, 2013 at 2:12 AM

jake-the-goose on March 4, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Obviously you know nothing of either Georgia History 1778…or Texas History

Gonzalez,Texas 1835

workingclass artist on March 4, 2013 at 11:28 PM

Not familiar with Georgia History. But read about Texas & Gonzalez, TX. Posted links celebrating Texas Independence Day, March 2, 2013. Very interesting. Sent the info & links to my children who were born there.

bluefox on March 5, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Here ya go…

“When the Continental Congress convened in 1776, the delegates recognized the importance of a fort to protect their growing seaport from the British. Soon afterwards, a low bluff on the Medway River at Sunbury was fortified and garrisoned by 200 patriots. When the British demanded the fort’s surrender on November 25, 1778, the defiant Col. John McIntosh replied, “Come and take it!” The British refused and withdrew back to Florida. Forty-five days later, they returned with a superior force, and on January 9, 1779, Fort Morris fell after a short but heavy bombardment…”

http://www.gastateparks.org/info/ftmorris/

“Come and Take It!” is as American a response to Tyranny as “Give me Liberty or Give me Death..” – Patrick Henry

workingclass artist on March 5, 2013 at 8:05 AM

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 11:15 PM

If our platform is more concerned with gay marriage and evolution than it is with reducing the deficit, reigning in big government and following the Constitution, maybe we deserve to lose.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Our platform is concerned with fundamental issues like smaller government and adherence to the constitution. Republicans have not made government smaller, and have done NO better in adhering to the constitution than the Dems have in the last 20 years.

But Gryph! Isn’t Medicare Part D better than Obamacare?

Only if you think spending less money than the Dems would have, given the opportunity, is somehow “better.” If you’re a rah-rah-sis-boom-bah cheerleader for the Republicans because they expand government somewhat more slowly than the Dems do, I’m sorry, but you’re part of the problem.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2013 at 8:43 AM

“Come and Take It!” is as American a response to Tyranny as “Give me Liberty or Give me Death..” – Patrick Henry

workingclass artist on March 5, 2013 at 8:05 AM

Molon labe. It’s a lot older than the American Revolution, but it’s timeless IMHO.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2013 at 8:44 AM

This is about as dumb as Akin’s and Murdock’s abortion comments. Why are our guys so uninformed when it comes to basic constitutional principles? And why are they so stupid in interviews? This one was with Beck. Imagine how he’d do with a liberal interviewer. Ouch.

Carson had my interest up until his dumb gun comments. He’s toast now. Move on please. Nothing to see here.

conservativemusician on March 5, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Meanwhile, it’d be easy to stop fighting the war on drugs and cut 15 billion in a flash.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 5, 2013 at 1:03 AM

And in five years be spending an extra $115 billion a year on drug addled idiots. Financial SUCCESS!

astonerii on March 5, 2013 at 9:18 AM

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 2:07 AM

.
I am glad to see you have a Model 12 Winchester in your family..I am equally blessed..:)

Dire Straits on March 5, 2013 at 2:12 AM

.
It was my paternal Grandfather’s, handed down to my Dad who still has it.

It was well used until the last few years.

Everytime I go to Cabelas (Hamburg, PA), I head STRAIGHT for the “used gun” racks, and look for M12s. I can’t afford one, but I can still handle the ones that are there, however briefly.

I also look for Sav M99s, but the last two times I was there I might have seen ONE. Apparently they’re getting popular as well.

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I keep reminding myself that fully 1/3 of the colonists were British loyalists, and another 1/3 of the colonists didn’t give a shit, which left only 1/3 of the colonists to percolate the experiment that would eventually become the United States of America.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 11:00 PM

This!!! Needs to be repeated ad nauseum.

Up until GW started winning, CW was tilted towards giving up and letting the King have his way – See Benedict Arnold et al. For the record, treason would be harsh as betrayal to the cause is more accurate. Just like all the CINOs up in DC claiming to support conservative principles, yet when they sense the tide turning, they scurry to take opposing positions. Except in this case they betray the conservative voters (who won’t be there to reelect them next time around) and acting “treasonously” to the oath to uphold the constitution and the rule of law.

It takes only a 1/3 to turn the tide again. My contention is that we have at least 1/3 of Americans that canand will support a die hard conservative. But the operative is ‘conservative’ in word, deed and frame of mind. Put up candidates in that mold and we will start winning by making a bold contrast agaisnt big spending statist

Perhaps we need to define the characteristics of “a real conservative”?

Conservatism is like wearing a three piece suit.

The suit coat is the financial beliefs ( i.e. paying as you go rather than endless budget defecits, currency is only as solid as the net worth of the government – not the wealth of the people)

The vest the social beliefs (e.g. marriage is a bedrock of a stable society, government is a necessary evil, etc)

The pants are a firm commitment to the Constitution.

Someone can not wear the vest and still be judged a conservative.

When they take off the coat, they come across as less serious overall and are likely to be treated as such.

If they don’t wear the pants … well, even if they have the other two vestments in place, people will rightly take exception.

The analogy misses one item that cannot be worn though it makes or breaks the overall perception – demeanor.

The best example of demeanor … Ronald Reagan.

PolAgnostic on March 4, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Exactly!!!

Two ways I see in getting the best representation is 1) more states ditch winneer-takes-all in the primaries AND in the ECV. 2) Going to multiple votes to isolate the true winner of elections. There’s no reason that ballots can’t be created to for voters to rank their choices. However many are on the ticket, instead of checkboxes, voters can assign a number to each (no # = no support). That way the candidate with the most wins, even if he/she was second choice for a majority of voters. This also saves money on run-off elections. This would prevent situations where Akins won against two better candidates that had their votes split.

Ultimately, the 17th needs to be repealed and control of the senate returned to the respective States.

AH_C on March 5, 2013 at 11:36 AM

That totally misses the point. Bad guys don’t give a damn what the law is and will carry whatever they want, wherever they want. Further restrictions only put law abiding citizens at a further disadvantage.

Bah, it’s all pointless anyway, this is a point of religion with the Left, there’s no logic or statistics or facts that will convince them. Molon labe.

John_G on March 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Whatever you like.

Bmore on March 5, 2013 at 11:51 AM

So, I guess the Carson lovefest is now officially over. Good, I didn’t like him from the get go.

hatecraft on March 5, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Sloppy thinking on Dr. Carson’s part. May I suggest that everyone read the Federalist Papers before commenting further on law and liberty? Our founders actually thought through a lot of implications.

disa on March 5, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Y’all are funny.

Bmore on March 5, 2013 at 1:20 PM

The urban/rural distinction was actually a key part of Breyer’s dissent in the Heller case five years ago that recognized established an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment that’s as plain as the nose on your face.

Akzed on March 5, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Every perceived conservative savior is great until he has an opinion. And that opinion will clash with someone’s deal breaker issue and then the savior is the enemy. It happens to them all. Dr. Carson is new to the scene and he’ll be lucky if this is the only time he steps in it.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 6:20 PM

He is only defined as a “Conservative Savior” because he is black. The Repubs are pushing any African that is one of the 4% who voted for Romney as the next conservative Messiah. Herman Cain is a perfect example. He had his wings fitted and his halo on order when his past opened up for everyone to see.

Stop being ashamed of being White! You have been fed “White is Weak” and “Whites don’t have racial interests” all your life via news and Movies. If they don’t throw a black in there to be the voice of “wisdom” for the hero, they just switch the races and to hell with the facts. Example: A Dolphin’s Tale. A lighthearted tale about a dolphin who receives an artificial tale from a Numinous negro(TM), when in reality it was two White scientists who developed the tail.

Bulletchaser on March 5, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Only if you think spending less money than the Dems would have, given the opportunity, is somehow “better.” If you’re a rah-rah-sis-boom-bah cheerleader for the Republicans because they expand government somewhat more slowly than the Dems do, I’m sorry, but you’re part of the problem.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2013 at 8:43 AM

This is the entire problem in two sentences. Brilliant.

We need a inter-State Kinetic Military Action, because the system is broken. Liberals want Amnesty NOW! Repubs want Amnesty soon. The people want less illegals, less immigration and a secure border.

The choice is the Liberals (fast) or Repubs (slow).

Bulletchaser on March 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Bulletchaser on March 5, 2013 at 2:56 PM

So very true, extra melanin can get you a pass on a lot of things. We, of the white persuasion, fail to understand what this has to do with character or intelligence. I will still give the good doctor some leeway but it has more to do with his being a political public rookie. I will continue to hide and watch.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Bulletchaser on March 5, 2013 at 2:56 PM

.
So very true, extra melanin can get you a pass on a lot of things. We, of the white persuasion, fail to understand what this has to do with character or intelligence.

Cindy Munford on March 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM

.
Excuse me, mam ….. we don’t use the term “white” in that context, anymore.

Today we say “melanin deficient”.

listens2glenn on March 6, 2013 at 12:10 AM

SO the rights granted under the Constitution are only valid sometimes in some places for certain people? uh… no.

johnnyU on March 6, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7