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 2 3 4 5 7

Looks like they are getting ready to invade Arizona and take out Brewer and Arpio.

Well, it would be a good test run. If it works on AZ they can move forward to Texas!

hawkeye54 on March 4, 2013 at 4:28 PM

I gave him a pass on his CPAC remark about a big tent.

His answer indicated he was equating the Republican Party with CPAC.

Does he know what a semi-automatic means?

Maybe he should stay off the shows until he has time to study some basic issues.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Nice knowing you, Doctor Flatline.

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 4:21 PM

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Plus, the fact that any righteous 5th grader would think it odd that a Constitutional right was subject to geographical/sociological constraints.

Or, at the very least, they’d get a confused look on their faces, if Carson’s statement was foisted upon them.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 4, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Genuine on March 4, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Love you too!

Schadenfreude on March 4, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Does this mean that we can ban reproduction in liberal states?

cajunpatriot on March 4, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Anther nutjob who thinks he should run for president!

And, we conservatives have a tendency to latch on to
anyone who comes out with even one paragraph of common sense.
Then they don’t shut up; they keep talking and the reality of
who they are is out there.

Amjean on March 4, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Does this mean that we can ban reproduction in liberal states?

cajunpatriot on March 4, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Why taunt us with such possibilities?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 4, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Looks like they are getting ready to invade Arizona and take out Brewer and Arpio.
VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Add to that FM 3-39.40 internment and resettlement operations and the litmus test for new troops firing on citizens. Find it at freerepublic.com

Confiscation, then devaluation, then who knows

can_con on March 4, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Some animals are more equal than others.

House animals can own guns but barn and field animals, not so much.

Lily on March 4, 2013 at 4:34 PM

jake-the-goose on March 4, 2013 at 4:10 PM

That would be exactly what I would expect an infiltration unit of the enemy to say to us in order to ensure we keep giving them easy prey.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Confiscation, then devaluation, then who knows

can_con on March 4, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Utopia.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 4:36 PM

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

Actually he is right. If you live in the United States of America you have that right. Other places, not so much.

MikeA on March 4, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Strategically placed potholes. And you don’t need a background check to dig a hole.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 4:22 PM

At last! An employment opportunity for bluegill.

katy the mean old lady on March 4, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Take your worn out race card and put it where the sun don’t shine.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Tribalism is in the genes; it will take thousands of years to squeeze it out. The really smart ones can suppress it by sheer intellectual power, but those are few, far between, and don’t go into politics.

Archivarix on March 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM

You were saying, VorDaj…?

changer1701 on March 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Anther nutjob who thinks he should run for president!

And, we conservatives have a tendency to latch on to
anyone who comes out with even one paragraph of common sense.
Then they don’t shut up; they keep talking and the reality of
who they are is out there.

Amjean on March 4, 2013 at 4:31 PM

The old 2:55am at the bar syndrome.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Doctors need to stick to doctoring and things they are educated about. This guy is educated about doctoring, but is completely ignorant about law and firearms.

TX-96 on March 4, 2013 at 4:46 PM

You were saying, VorDaj…?

changer1701 on March 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Take your worn out race card and put it where the sun don’t shine. Do you want me to say it in Spanish too?

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM

The whole idea of regulation based on local circumstances sounds “reasonable” until you, you know, examine it.

Every single one of the targeted restrictions being passed off as “reasonable”, every single one, depends on the preposterous notion that new restrictions on the law-abiding will somehow have an impact on criminals, who by definition ignore the law.

The only way the government can effectively reduce gun crime is to jail the people who commit those crimes. Perhaps they should start with people who falsify a Form 4473 while trying to buy a gun. Of nearly 80,000 rejections for the last year numbers are available, there were less than 50 prosecutions for the felony of falsifying the 4473. FBI numbers reflect that between 50-60% of rejections are due to felony convictions, and that rejectees have a high probability of committing a firearms related crime within 5 years of being rejected.

Prosecuting these criminals would be effective, but that would upset the whole strategic model of the gun grabbers. People will certainly die as a result of this dereliction of duty, but apparently sacrifices have to be made.

novaculus on March 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Some animals are more equal than others.

House animals can own guns but barn and field animals, not so much.

Lily on March 4, 2013 at 4:34 PM

So that’s the problem. Doctor Flatline read Animal Farm and thought it was the United States Constitution.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 4:52 PM

So you’re saying the 2nd Amendment is flawed? And if you follow the logic within it there should either be no restrictions on home ownership of weaponry (no infringement) including fully automatic and nuclear weapons, or if one ‘infringement’ is ok, that any ‘infringement’ the government desires should be ok?

Is that your position?

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Are you having reading comprehension issues? Or have you just drunk so much of the Marxist kool-aid that certain concepts are impossible for you to follow?

Let’s get something 100 percent perfectly clear shall we. The 2nd amendment was not created to protect your right to go target shooting or hunting, ok. It was created for the specific purpose of providing the Citizens of the United States of America with the physical means of overthrowing a tyrannical, unresponsive oppressive government if the need should ever arise, and of reminding the Government every single day, that should the need arise that the American people can overthrow them.

The second amendment’s purpose was to ensure that the Government remained a government, of the people, for the people and by the people.

To that end, the Founding Fathers included the phrase, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, in that statement is everything you need to know regarding the limitation that the founding fathers believed should be placed upon what kinds of arms they believed every American Citizen had the right to own and bear.

No, I absolutely do not believe that the 2nd amendment is in any way shape or form flawed. I believe it says exactly what the
Founding Father’s intended it to say, and means exactly what they intended it to mean.

I believe that (Especially since the Gun Control Act of 1968) that the United States Government has been blatantly and ruthlessly violating the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. I believe that if you think that their is any valid justification for requiring a Citizen of United States of America to license, register, or pay any kind of special government tax or fee, or obtain any kind of permit, that you have succumbed to the Marxist indoctrination and are probably far less conservative than you think you are.

Furthermore, that you would include the Reductio ad absurdum argument “and nuclear weapons” leads me to believe that no, in fact you probably never have given any serious consideration to what “Shall not Infringe” means, or the meaning behind the inclusion of the 2d amendment into the United States Constitution at all.

This is what the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM

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

He’s absolutely right. And how much soda you can buy at one time –strictly on a zip code basis. I feel very strongly that women in the Cleveland city boundaries should not wear bikinis, for example, and men — and here I use the term loosely — who live in the Lincoln Park neighborhood in Chicago should not be allowed to vote or speak in public on political issues.

So…

Jaibones on March 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM

First, I already thought it did depend on where you lived. I live in America, where the Constitution guarantees me that right. Folks in Rwanda, not so much.

Oh, it’s an urban/rural thing? Well, he’s shot himself in the foot, then. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

Second, if homicides are that much worse in the cities, then those folks have more need of handguns than everyone else. Anything else is an argument for living in fear. It’s the Hope & Change concept: I hope the police arrive before I have to change my shorts.

Third:

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.

Actually, you are just pointing out the constitutional deficiencies in Heller. While I am wiling to let the machine gun restriction stand for now, there really shouldn’t be any weapons which can be regulated in the fashion you mean here. None.

Fourth, as to the issue of thefts of handguns – so what? Does that mean we should not allow people to drive Toyota Camrys, and Honda Accords and Civics? After all, they are the most stolen automobiles. So, let’s just ban them in high theft areas, right?

Basically, Dr Carson has just outed himself as a progressive: he thinks we can fix society by restricting people’s freedom. Sorry, no. As Nicholson says in As Good As It Gets, “Go sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all full up here.”

GWB on March 4, 2013 at 4:56 PM

how does this make any sense? shouldn’t it be the opposite? if more gun violence occurs in urban areas, shouldn’t people THERE have the more powerful guns, to protect themselves?? why are we RESTRICTING people’s ability to protect themselves, if they are more likely to face violence?

and where do you even draw the line between “urban” and “rural?” what about suburban area people, like me?

none of this makes sense.

i hope ben carson isn’t the next christie. christie was loved by conservatives at first, then look how he turned out.

Sachiko on March 4, 2013 at 4:56 PM

“What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or of France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.”

- Thomas Jefferson

Own Our Failures to Uphold the Constitution

Resist We Much on March 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Take your worn out race card and put it where the sun don’t shine. Do you want me to say it in Spanish too?

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM

I asked him to explain the remark. He did. The “card”, such as it is, was played by him. I don’t know what your problem is, but your preoccupation with where the sun doesn’t shine would suggest you need to see someone about getting that stick removed.

changer1701 on March 4, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Doctors need to stick to doctoring and things they are educated about.

TX-96 on March 4, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Yep. Luckily for Carson, Sheriff Joe is there to provide expert advice.

/

Christien on March 4, 2013 at 5:00 PM

changer1701 on March 4, 2013 at 4:59 PM

I reject the worn out Race Card in all states, in both urban and rural settings, and morning, noon and night.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM

That would be exactly what I would expect an infiltration unit of the enemy to say to us in order to ensure we keep giving them easy prey.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Dude – I am an NRA member and I own a AR-15 – bought it 2 months ago.

You got the wrong man.

jake-the-goose on March 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Doctors need to stick to doctoring and things they are educated about.

TX-96 on March 4, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Obama’s workin’ on that.

I’m thinkin’ that an awful lot of physicians are gonna be doin’ an awful lot of fishin’ and readin’ and drinkin’, after Commander Transparent and ObamaCare “educate” them.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Next! The same argument was just made at SCOTUS ove rvoting rights. Constitutionally if you live in Texas it’s okay to have a semi-auto handgun, whereas if you live NYC it’s not?

Tater Salad on March 4, 2013 at 5:07 PM

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Let’s specify one thing about your comment on the militia phrase – that phrase was included partly because it put the states in the position of acting in resistance to an attempted tyranny, too. With a militia being partly for the purpose of local self-defense (this was back in the day when local savages ran loose in some areas and could hold the people in fear of their barbaric ways – wait, that could describe Chicago, today, too), and partly as the defense force of the state, it allowed both the individual and the state to call upon force to resist barbarians or invaders or home-grown tyranny.

(That is not to imply the states couldn’t have the same problem with home-grown tyranny, merely reflecting on the state sovereignty themes embedded in the Constitution.)

GWB on March 4, 2013 at 5:07 PM

If you live with the black, Oh Lawdy!

No Fortwy

If you are White and drink Wine,

you get a Nine!

Bulletchaser on March 4, 2013 at 5:07 PM

how does this make any sense? shouldn’t it be the opposite? if more gun violence occurs in urban areas, shouldn’t people THERE have the more powerful guns, to protect themselves?? why are we RESTRICTING people’s ability to protect themselves, if they are more likely to face violence?

Carson clearly believes that gun control works – that restricting legal access to weapons reduces gun crime.

This view is less problematic than his view that Constitutional rights are dependent on geography, but it is a major problem all on its own.

Missy on March 4, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Just goes to show that if you live in a densely populated area, YOU NEED A GUN!

GarandFan on March 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM

This is what the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject.SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Beautiful!! Your entire comment needs bookmarked and posted everytime this subject comes up. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to send it to every member of Congress!!!!

Awesome, SWalker, just Awesome!!

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM

And…. POOF… there went his chances. See ya, good doctor. It’s starting to look more and more to me like these up-and-coming Republican hopefuls are nothing but Kamikaze pilots.

justjulie20 on March 4, 2013 at 5:17 PM

This doesn’t happen because American’s fight for the freedom to take our rights away.

Shall not be infringed. Isn’t exempted by political agenda, or any other damned reason either.

Speakup on March 4, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Awesome, SWalker, just Awesome!!

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM

It was awesome but eventually he will let you down on something, and I’m sure he must agree.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM

JEFF SESSIONS!!!

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Let’s specify one thing about your comment on the militia phrase – that phrase was included partly because it put the states in the position of acting in resistance to an attempted tyranny, too. With a militia being partly for the purpose of local self-defense (this was back in the day when local savages ran loose in some areas and could hold the people in fear of their barbaric ways – wait, that could describe Chicago, today, too), and partly as the defense force of the state, it allowed both the individual and the state to call upon force to resist barbarians or invaders or home-grown tyranny.

(That is not to imply the states couldn’t have the same problem with home-grown tyranny, merely reflecting on the state sovereignty themes embedded in the Constitution.)

GWB on March 4, 2013 at 5:07 PM

True, my point regarding the Militia’s however was to point out that a Militia is a military type organization and armed with the same types of weapons that would typically be found in any modern military, as opposed to the weapons one would usually associate with a sporting enthusiast.

Thus, in order for there to be a “Well Regulated Militia” the individual citizens were not expected to be restricted to the ownership exclusively of “Sporting styled Arms”.

It is also important for everyone to understand that militia’s are not government, (I.e. Federal or State) funded organizations. They are civilian organizations which place themselves at the disposals, up to a certain point, to their State Governments.

Militia members pay for their own weapons, uniforms, training and any other logistic and support requirements that might be associated with their activities.

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Since the sole reason to oppose Dr. Carson’s statement is based on constitutional grounds, why aren’t more conservatives actively pushing for the ability to purchase fully automatic weapons?

Hostile Gospel on March 4, 2013 at 3:50 PM

.

But I think this is a fundamental inconsistency. I’m not sure how conservatives can concede the right to own fully automatics but deplore the ability of local governments, most likely urban and liberal, to limit semi automatics. If one if protected under the constitution, why isn’t the other?

Hostile Gospel on March 4, 2013 at 3:58 PM

.
Fully automatic rifles/carbines/pistols are not illegal in the sense that they are ‘banned’. They are regulated, and require a more intensive background check than handguns.

My take (and us conservatives at Hotair don’t all agree on this) is that the rounds going down-range from an automatic weapon cannot be precisely controlled when the weapon is in “full-auto” mode. As such, there are going to be multiple ricocheted bullets flying where the shooter doesn’t want them, but can’t prevent them.

On that basis. I accept government regulation of fully auto rifles/carbines/pistols.

B U T . . . . . . . . the “government regulation” and enforcement should be handled by the State government, and NOT the Feds.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Awesome, SWalker, just Awesome!!

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM

It was awesome but eventually he will let you down on something, and I’m sure he must agree.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Indeed I would be the very first to point that obvious fact out.

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Still, good for Dr. Carson for taking on The One while standing next to him.

sauldalinsky on March 4, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Everything he said at that Prayer breakfast is worthless if he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because it’s the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the 1st Amendment.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Awesome, SWalker, just Awesome!!

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM

It was awesome but eventually he will let you down on something, and I’m sure he must agree.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM

May I ask who the “he” is?

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Indeed I would be the very first to point that obvious fact out.

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 5:23 PM

No, I was the first, although you were the second.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Urban areas have strict gun control, how’s that working out?

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Still, good for Dr. Carson for taking on The One while standing next to him.

sauldalinsky on March 4, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Everything he said at that Prayer breakfast is worthless if he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because it’s the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the 1st Amendment.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Seriously? Everything he said is worthless because he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment in the exact same way you support it?

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Next!

At least we got to see what he’s really like before everyone got too excited.

Scotsman on March 4, 2013 at 5:30 PM

I like Ben Carson-but the second amendment is one of my non-negotiables. Next.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 5:30 PM

May I ask who the “he” is?

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM

“He” would be SWalker or Jeff Sessions or Joe Doe or I guess even Jesus Christ.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Urban areas have strict gun control, how’s that working out?

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM

How is gun control any stricter in urban areas than rural areas? The law that DC tried to put in was struct down.

I don’t see how one could justify that 2nd amendment protects the rights of gun owners in rural areas more than urban areas. I don’t this is a defensible position, which probably while Democrats haven’t put it forward.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Urban areas have strict gun control, how’s that working out?

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Gun grabbers will respond that gun flow in from the areas around those under strict control.

That utterly fails to explain why other cities don’t have the same issue with their absence of People Control.

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 5:32 PM

True, my point regarding the Militia’s however was to point out that a Militia is a military type organization and armed with the same types of weapons that would typically be found in any modern military, as opposed to the weapons one would usually associate with a sporting enthusiast.

Thus, in order for there to be a “Well Regulated Militia” the individual citizens were not expected to be restricted to the ownership exclusively of “Sporting styled Arms”.

It is also important for everyone to understand that militia’s are not government, (I.e. Federal or State) funded organizations. They are civilian organizations which place themselves at the disposals, up to a certain point, to their State Governments.

Militia members pay for their own weapons, uniforms, training and any other logistic and support requirements that might be associated with their activities.

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM

You seem to imply that the 2nd amendment is unlimited. Do you believe that there are limits to the 2nd amendment? If so, one could argue that it is flawed as written, as those limits aren’t better defined.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Everything he said at that Prayer breakfast is worthless if he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because it’s the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the 1st Amendment.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Seriously? Everything he said is worthless because he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment in the exact same way you support it?

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Failure to support a right everywhere means that right isn’t supported anywhere.

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Seriously? Everything he said is worthless because he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment in the exact same way you support it?

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM

He doesn’t support the Second Amendment at all.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I agree with the good doctor. A person who lives on south Chicago should be able to own flamethrowers and machine guns to protect themselves.

Kuffar on March 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM

You seem to imply that the 2nd amendment is unlimited. Do you believe that there are limits to the 2nd amendment? If so, one could argue that it is flawed as written, as those limits aren’t better defined.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Didn’t he already answer that question?

What’s next, are you going to trot out the old standby – the Superweapon Strawman?

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM

You seem to imply that the 2nd amendment is unlimited. Do you believe that there are limits to the 2nd amendment? If so, one could argue that it is flawed as written, as those limits aren’t better defined.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM

There should be no restriction. If you can handle the cost of a harrier, more power to you! Real power!

The founding fathers would not have beaten the British, and being wary of becoming servants to the state again, they specifically put the second amendment in place to ensure the populations would have the weapons required to fight the federal government if it became overbearing and no longer met the needs of the citizens, but only of its own power.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Seriously? Everything he said is worthless because he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment in the exact same way you support it?

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM

YES

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Failure to support a right everywhere means that right isn’t supported anywhere.

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM

He doesn’t support the Second Amendment at all.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I agree. Emotionally, I understand where he’s coming from. In terms of rights though, it doesn’t make any sense.

I was more commenting on him seemingly losing all his conservative credibility. It almost seems like some people think he’s a liberal(rather than being liberal(if that) on one issue)

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM

The right to armed self-defence only applies where the need to defend ones self is small.

The right to free speech only applies to unoffensive speech that no one would attack.

The right to own property only applies to people with little or no property.

Is there a pattern here??

Rich H on March 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Dr. Ben is going to have to learn about the 2nd Ammendment.He won’t be the first smart guy who has some things to learn.

Charm on March 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM

What part of the constitution was he reading from that gives rural different rights than urban? For a real smart man, he needs to read over the 2nd one more time.

Kissmygrits on March 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Didn’t he already answer that question?

What’s next, are you going to trot out the old standby – the Superweapon Strawman?

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM

I didn’t see it. What was his answer?

And fine, should you be restricted from carrying a shotgun on United flight?

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Yep, it was nice knowing you, Dr. Carson.

PatriotGal2257 on March 4, 2013 at 5:44 PM

May I ask who the “he” is?

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM

“He” would be SWalker or Jeff Sessions or Joe Doe or I guess even Jesus Christ.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Jesus Christ would never let me down, so you’re misguided there.

I don’t understand the need for your remark anyway. SWalker’s comment is what I was replying to. I wasn’t discussing whether man is perfect or not. I certainly know the answer to that. Why you want to deflect from what SWalker said or my reply, I have no idea.

Thanks for answering my question tho.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM

There should be no restriction. If you can handle the cost of a harrier, more power to you! Real power!

The founding fathers would not have beaten the British, and being wary of becoming servants to the state again, they specifically put the second amendment in place to ensure the populations would have the weapons required to fight the federal government if it became overbearing and no longer met the needs of the citizens, but only of its own power.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM

I respect this argument. Unlimited is unlimited.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:46 PM

And fine, should you be restricted from carrying a shotgun on United flight?

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:43 PM

You can be restricted from boarding at all if that is what they want, because it’s a private business.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Fully automatic rifles/carbines/pistols are not illegal in the sense that they are ‘banned’. They are regulated, and require a more intensive background check than handguns.

My take (and us conservatives at Hotair don’t all agree on this) is that the rounds going down-range from an automatic weapon cannot be precisely controlled when the weapon is in “full-auto” mode. As such, there are going to be multiple ricocheted bullets flying where the shooter doesn’t want them, but can’t prevent them.

On that basis. I accept government regulation of fully auto rifles/carbines/pistols.

B U T . . . . . . . . the “government regulation” and enforcement should be handled by the State government, and NOT the Feds.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Extremely fair argument. Thanks!

Hostile Gospel on March 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

At least we found out now, before he got elected to something.

TexasDan on March 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:32 PM

But it appears that Dr. Carson does think there is a difference. Luckily SCOTUS disagrees.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 5:50 PM

So it’s the Rural Second Amendment now, Doc?

How about less free speech in cities, as well?

If the Bill of Rights is to become a fragmented joke, let’s go whole hog.

profitsbeard on March 4, 2013 at 5:50 PM

I didn’t see it. What was his answer?

And fine, should you be restricted from carrying a shotgun on United flight?

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:43 PM

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM

The current debate is on keeping the rights we have now and not eroding them any further.

I mean, who actually talking about taking shotguns on to airline flights (besides Joe Biden, ba da bump)

Who talking about owning Nucs and other super weapons?

I mean, beside those pushing that shopworn strawman..

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM

You can be restricted from boarding at all if that is what they want, because it’s a private business.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Private businesses cannot(and shouldn’t be able to )restrict an individuals constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has ruled on that several times.

An unlimited right means exactly that; without limits.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Well, that was disappointing. I thought he had some promise. Even if his position ‘evolves’ it will be hard to trust him.

It’s kind of like finding a turd in the punchbowl. Even after you remove it, the Kool-Aid will be hard to swallow.

MarkM on March 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

My take (and us conservatives at Hotair don’t all agree on this) is that the rounds going down-range from an automatic weapon cannot be precisely controlled when the weapon is in “full-auto” mode. As such, there are going to be multiple ricocheted bullets flying where the shooter doesn’t want them, but can’t prevent them.

On that basis. I accept government regulation of fully auto rifles/carbines/pistols.

B U T . . . . . . . . the “government regulation” and enforcement should be handled by the State government, and NOT the Feds.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Yeah, no. I don’t agree.

If there is a tactical reason for police to have access to full auto, or the secret service defending the president, then I want to have the option available to me as well. The decision about how well you can control your rounds, and whether or not to fire on full auto, should be up to you and me. Yes, we’ll still be responsible for the results of our actions. But we should have the choice. We do, in fact, still have this choice, except that regulation of production has priced that option out of reach of all but a few.

To sum up: full auto is not banned, as you note, but is denied to the poor and even middle class by regulated control of supply. In what universe are conservatives okay with that scenario?

TexasDan on March 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

The more I hear from this guy the more I think he is out to lunch.Rescind your invitation CPAC!

redware on March 4, 2013 at 5:54 PM

The current debate is on keeping the rights we have now and not eroding them any further.

I mean, who actually talking about taking shotguns on to airline flights (besides Joe Biden, ba da bump)

Who talking about owning Nucs and other super weapons?

I mean, beside those pushing that shopworn strawman..

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM

That’s not true at all. SWalker specifically addressed that, saying:

I believe that (Especially since the Gun Control Act of 1968) that the United States Government has been blatantly and ruthlessly violating the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. I believe that if you think that their is any valid justification for requiring a Citizen of United States of America to license, register, or pay any kind of special government tax or fee, or obtain any kind of permit, that you have succumbed to the Marxist indoctrination and are probably far less conservative than you think you are.

You simply aren’t telling the truth.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Private businesses cannot(and shouldn’t be able to )restrict an individuals constitutional rights.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Yes they can. I am not allowed to talk in a movie theater, bring my own food into a restaurant, or hang around a store if they don’t want me to do so.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I was more commenting on him seemingly losing all his conservative credibility. It almost seems like some people think he’s a liberal(rather than being liberal(if that) on one issue)

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM

It doesn’t matter what he or others describe him to be. What matters is he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment. We have a lot of people that don’t support the 2nd Amendment so this is nothing new, just surprising. Truth is always good tho:-)

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:57 PM

To sum up: full auto is not banned, as you note, but is denied to the poor and even middle class by regulated control of supply. In what universe are conservatives okay with that scenario?

TexasDan on March 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

So are RVs and waterfront homes on Cape Cod. I’m not aware of quota’s being placed by government on full auto weapons.

Maybe I’m mis-reading what you mean by ‘regulated control’.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 5:57 PM

How is gun control any stricter in urban areas than rural areas? The law that DC tried to put in was struct down.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:32 PM

DC didnt “try” to put a law in, it has been in effect over 20 years. same w/ chicago. and crime keeps getting worse and worse.

chasdal on March 4, 2013 at 5:57 PM

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Their property, their rules.
I could not take my weapon to my old work place, even in the trunk of my car… Their property, their property rights trump my second amendment rights. Going onto their property, I voluntarily give up my rights for that period of time. My right, my choice to give it up. I can go work somewhere else. They had armed guards, so I was willing.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Private businesses cannot(and shouldn’t be able to )restrict an individuals constitutional rights.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

dude, you are in way over your head. take a civics class, it will help you

chasdal on March 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Yes they can. I am not allowed to talk in a movie theater, bring my own food into a restaurant, or hang around a store if they don’t want me to do so.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 5:56 PM

All of which are private property. There is no civil or criminal tort by talking in a movie theater. You can be asked to leave, and you can refuse. Then you’re trespassing, which you are not allowed to do.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Everything he said at that Prayer breakfast is worthless if he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because it’s the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the 1st Amendment.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:24 PM

.
Seriously? Everything he said is worthless because he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment in the exact same way you support it?

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM

.
I disagree that “Everything he said at that Prayer breakfast is worthless if he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment.”

I absolutely agree that the Second Amendment is the GUARANTOR of the whole Constitution.

Someone from our side needs to have a genuine, calm, reserved, non-argumentative discussion with him, about it.

In fact, I’ll bet some very good pro-Second Amendment people have already initiated contact with him, in the last few hours.

Unfortunately, he probably got some “hate mail” because of this, as well. That doesn’t help our cause any.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM

All of which are private property. There is no civil or criminal tort by talking in a movie theater. You can be asked to leave, and you can refuse. Then you’re trespassing, which you are not allowed to do.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Yes they are private property and so is a United Airlines flight.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Yes they can. I am not allowed to talk in a movie theater, bring my own food into a restaurant, or hang around a store if they don’t want me to do so.

he 1st amendment is very much not unlimited, and written to demonstrate that.

We also don’t have a right to food or a right to stand around

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Who talking about owning Nucs and other super weapons?

I mean, beside those pushing that shopworn strawman..

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Well … I was using the argument (after the Nuke in the basement card had alreaedy been played mind you) to propose the idea that if we are going to talk about second amendment “Compromise”, then “unlimited” amendment II rights (including those scary super-weapons) would be my starting position.

I tire of the idea that acquiescing to the latest gun control fad as a “compromise” is somehow “fair and equitable”. It’s like asking a virgin on prom night to compromise in the back seat of the car … Just the tip?

PoliTech on March 4, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I mean, beside those pushing that shopworn strawman..

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Strawmen are just another way to put up brick walls and put others on defense. No reason to fall for that.

The 2nd Amendment is in our Constitution and there is no need to defend it. Period. One is either for it or against it. If one wants to change the Constitution, then Amend it. Otherwise….

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Don’t you guys think it’s a little early to be cannibalizing the 2012 field?!

Rainsford on March 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM

wow seriously? some of you idiots are making comments about his race, as if that is what led him to say this? where do you get the idea that he wouldn’t have said this if he weren’t black? this topic has nothing to do with race and it’s interesting that some people have race on their mind 24/7 so much that they will bring up the subject even in a topic that has nothing to do with it.

btw, is christie black? so how do some of you racist idiots explain him? he was loved by conservatives and then became more liberal. but gasp, he’s not black!

yes you really are racist. stop assuming that blacks dislike the constitution. i am both black and conservative, tired of this racism. you don’t know that carson would not have said the exact same thing if he were white. you just want to criticize black people for no logical reason. but hey it’s easier to make generalizations about large groups of people than to think logically.

and:

What about Mia Love, Clarence Thomas, and Thomas Sowell? They all seem pretty solid to me.

scotash on March 4, 2013 at 4:17 PM

i guess some people here conveniently forgot about them.

Sachiko on March 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Don’t you guys think it’s a little early to be cannibalizing the 2012 field?!

Rainsford on March 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM

You got a time machine or a head injury?

portlandon on March 4, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Considering the wave of stupid that is moving from California westeards, into Colorado and Nevada, I am beginning to see some merit in Dr. Carson’s Constitutional formulations.

Let’s restrict people’s right to move from highly urbanized and liberal districts to other parts of the US….

JFKY on March 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Wait, let’s get this clear:
Private property does not override a person’s constitutional rights. What’d be the point of having rights if they did?

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Not surprising, considering minorities in general tend to be anti-Constitution.

sauldalinsky on March 4, 2013 at 3:54 PM

making generalizations about large groups of people is so easy and fun, right? but it’s not very smart, now is it?

Sachiko on March 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Who’s talking about owning Nucs and other super weapons?

Galt2009 on March 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM

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

I warned that just because this guy gave a decent speech in front of a yawning President that an instant leader of Conservative thought he is NOT.

NEXT.

PappyD61 on March 4, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7