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 6 7

Wrong. Next.

mchristian on March 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM

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.

TexasDan on March 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

.
The State and Local Police should not be using full-auto firearms “in the line of duty” (I don’t believe there should be any National Police at all, period).
If any are, then that should be exposed. There was a time that it was against the law for Police to use full-auto firearms, while in the line of duty.
I would not begrudge the Secret Service in using full-auto firearms when they are accompanying POTUS, out in the general public.

That should be the only criteria for them to be “carrying”, at any one time.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:18 PM

And for those of you RUBIO SUPPORTERS, You think Rubio is going to run if Daddy Jeb announces he’s running?

Not a chance. Besides Rubio is up for re-election in 2016 it’s not his turn.

It is the time of Crown Prince Jeb of the House of Bush. All hail the new RINO leader, bow before him now all ye republicans. Sure he’ll lose if he gets the nomination but he’ll have all that awesome KARL ROVE “Conservative” Victory SuperPac money to spend.

Please God let Hillary run so we can have a BUSH / CLINTON matchup in 2016. America needs a female nominee that CANNOT BE CRITICIZED or you’re a SEXIST (like Obama used the “racist” shield).

JEB, JEB, JEB!!!
Finish off the gop in style.

PappyD61 on March 4, 2013 at 6:19 PM

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM

I’m not giving him a grace period on this. Our rights are under attack. We don’t need to be elevating a brilliant constitutional ‘squish’ to sainthood.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 6:19 PM

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:40 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

Somebody has to clue the good Dr. in on the fact that he’s being had.

Liberals pull this trick on conservatives over and over again. They tell us that the cities have special needs because of their high crime rate, that they should have their own restrictive gun laws because they’re DIFFERENT!

And then what happens?

Crime continues to go up. But does anybody point out that these restrictive laws have proven to be not just useless but making things worse? Oh, No! Instead the excuse is that the problem is everybody else has lax gun laws, and guns are flooding into the city and poisoning it. We’ve got to close the loopholes! Make the gun laws uniform! That’ll fix it!

And when it doesn’t, just return to step 1.

Seriously, how many times do liberals have to pull that football away before we stop trying to kick it?

And you too, AP. Get a clue and stop playing the liberal’s game.

Socratease on March 4, 2013 at 6:20 PM

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM

What he said at the Prayer breakfast is worthless NOW for him. He’s negated everything by not supporting the 2nd Amendment. A person can have all of the great ideas but what are they worth? To him now? Do you think someone other than he would be able to bring them forth? Perhaps, but it won’t be anyone that is against the 2nd Amendment.

Would you vote for him now? I wouldn’t, nor more than I would any other person that’s against the 2nd Amendment.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM

So… What? Handguns legal in rural areas and rifles legal in urban areas?

besser tot als rot on March 4, 2013 at 6:26 PM

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM

I’m not giving him a grace period on this. Our rights are under attack. We don’t need to be elevating a brilliant constitutional ‘squish’ to sainthood.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Thank you!! We have too many now that want to restrict us to rocks.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 6:28 PM

And, hey, he’s entitled to his opinion about where what firearms should be allowed. But if he wants to enforce that opinion, it’d better be by constitutional amendment.

besser tot als rot on March 4, 2013 at 6:28 PM

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM

.
I’m not giving him a grace period on this. Our rights are under attack. We don’t need to be elevating a brilliant constitutional ‘squish’ to sainthood.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 6:19 PM

.
I’m not aware that he’s running for elected office anywhere.

If he were running within my ‘voting district’ I would insist that he’s wrong on this issue, and wouldn’t vote for him. I would try to reason with him about it, but he would have to change his position to get my vote.

If that’s not what you meant, then what did you mean by “not giving him a grace period on this”?

Oh … and “good evening to you.” : )

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:29 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

Pfft. Per John Kerry, you have the right to be stupid, and boy, are you taking advantage of it, lol.

Tell you what, why don’t you ask those folks who went to see Batman several months ago in a Colorado theater if a private business can ban guns on its property.

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

segasagez

Yeah, I don’t think you’ve read the 1st OR the 2nd Amendment. You don’t have a right to carry a gun on my property and you don’t have a right to deliver a monologue supporting your favorite candidate on my property either.

xblade on March 4, 2013 at 6:29 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.
Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Bah. Everyone agrees with me ….

besser tot als rot on March 4, 2013 at 6:30 PM

States and towns should be able to regulate the sale and carrying of guns in their own jurisdiction as long as they don’t try to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining them somewhere else and keeping them in their own home. If you don’t like the gun laws where you live it’s simple…just move on. Hiding behind the government nanny will never solve the problem.

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 5:40 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

.
B I N G O … (should that be “thread winner”? I’m inclined to say so).

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:34 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

Let’s get this clear: You are dumb.

xblade on March 4, 2013 at 6:35 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.
Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 6:20 PM

It’s not a difference of opinion about whether the optimal tax rate is 34.5% or 34%….
1) This is a discussion of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, and Dr Carson is making a wrong-headed and ill-thought out stab at defining this right…
2) It says, “I’m not ready for Prime Time.”

Do you think that people in cities deserve more or less First Amendment coverage, because they live in a city?

Because that is analogously what Carson is saying…this is a fundamental error, a faulty bit of reasoning…

Had Carson said, “I believe that there are indeed RTP&M restrictions on gun possession and carriage.” We could argue about them, and I’d agree that the “purists” were scuttling the good enough for the perfect.

But that’s not what is happening here…he made a simple logic error, simple does not mean small or insignificant…it’s a simple logic error to ASSUME your money is REALLY the government’s money and they just let you keep some of it….He makes the logic error that your 2A rights are contingent on your location in the US….It’s a simple error, but a gross one.

JFKY on March 4, 2013 at 6:36 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

The super scary strawman is a way of illustrating with hyperbole the issue of what comprises ‘arms’ as used in the Constitution. If a person agrees that no one should have a nuke in their basement, then they have drawn a line, somewhere, about what is and is not acceptable for private ownership.

I don’t know what the definition of an ‘arm’ is, but the best I’ve heard so far is “in common use”, relative to the current time.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 6:39 PM

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

.
Bah. Everyone agrees with me ….

besser tot als rot on March 4, 2013 at 6:30 PM

.
That’s fine, as long as you agree with me.

If not, then you’re all WRONG.
.

(LMAO, while typing this): )

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Dr Ben Carson for Surgeon General 2016!

MCGIRV on March 4, 2013 at 6:40 PM

segasagez

I have Constitutional Rights, too…YOURS are not more important than mine…one of which is a right to private property.

My House; My Rules….Your rights end when they conflict or over-ride mine….

IF I don’t want guns in my house, your 2A rights end at MY property line…also, if you like John F Kerry, that’s fine, but you can’t hold a Kerry for President rally ON MY PROPERTY, no matter how much you wave the 1st A “right to assemble” under my nose.

Under the law we are EQUALS, and on my property my desires win out…. anything other than that says we are NOT equals, but you are my Superior, and that is not what the Constitution is about.

JFKY on March 4, 2013 at 6:40 PM

well Doc,

True…if you live in the United States and are a citizen, then you should be able to own any kind of firearm. And carry it just about any freakin’ place you want. (OK…jails/prisons? No. )

Because, you know….that’s the way the Right is recognized, not granted.

ProfShadow on March 4, 2013 at 6:41 PM

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

Call it “inside baseball” if you missed the context. SWalker didn’t and I think we are on the same page, or at least the same chapter anyway.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 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

The two are separate. I, nor the government, can’t stop you from speaking. I can evict you from my property.

Do you believe you have a right to express yourself (First Amendment) on my property, regardless of my objection to your presence?

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Speaking of Blaze TV and the 2nd amendment, I highly recommend watching Glenn Beck’s program today, (Dish channel 212), on the topic of gun control.

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Speaking of Blaze TV and the 2nd amendment, I highly recommend watching Glenn Beck’s program today, (Dish channel 212), on the topic of gun control.

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Does he have a follow-up segment on Mouth Control for Doctor Flatline?

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM

I actually blame hannity for this. He is such a blind zealot that he jumped at the thought of an African American challenging Obama. He did the same thing with Herman Cain. Ben Carson made some good points about Obama Care and then was anointed to GOP sainthood because he’s black. The classic, “this guy can say things we can’t, because he’s black” idea.

I’m think Carson is a good guy. He seems like it. But he does not appear to have a political future, at least not representing conservatives. We need to have a little more restraint and withhold instant sainthood until we learn who people are, and in this case why we are even talking about them.

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Your right to own a semiautomatic should depend on where you live

…and it does. Nazi Germany = no. America = yes.

Ronnie on March 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Speaking of Blaze TV and the 2nd amendment, I highly recommend watching Glenn Beck’s program today, (Dish channel 212), on the topic of gun control.

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

.
Some of us are such fanatics, that we have it “DVRrd” by DISH and can watch it over the internet.

Aw yeah … you can’t have “too much” Glenn.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Fail !

Another Republican falls at the first fence;next candidate please .

Sandybourne on March 4, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Move along nothing to see here. This is not the one we are looking for.

meci on March 4, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Private property does not override a person’s constitutional rights. What’d be the point of having rights if they did?

segasagez

It just occurred to me. The Constitution provides private property rights, along with speech, religion, arms, search and seizure, etc. The Castle Doctrine is a long held canon, and is not what Crazy Joe Biden is suggesting by firing through a door.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM

JFKY on March 4, 2013 at 6:36 PM

My comment isn’t suppose to be about whether I agree with Dr. Carson or not. I don’t. It is for those who want to stick up for him. Which is fine but they should expect to come up against some serious arguments about why any or all the “front runners” are not viable. I have not read Dr. Carson’s book and he has a compelling life story but I don’t know who he is so I’m not joining his political fan club. But he (by way of his mom) get a huge round of applause from me for not growing up a victim.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

.
Does he have a follow-up segment on Mouth Control for Doctor Flatline?

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM

.
FIRST AMENDMENT ! . FIRST AMENDMENT !

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Yeah, he does that. Why did he have to out crazy Rep. Ellison? It was a stand alone performance that needed no additions.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 6:56 PM

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

I don’t think it odd….kids should learn early who the enemy is and who isn’t. And by that age they should be getting 22 lessons at the very least.

I’m all for disarming the boobs in the cities / ghettos and certain whole geographic areas…but if they want to do it themselves like the entire NE and west coast…I say let them feed the gators that are in the moats.

Twana on March 4, 2013 at 6:56 PM

I have Constitutional Rights, too…YOURS are not more important than mine…one of which is a right to private property.

My House; My Rules….Your rights end when they conflict or over-ride mine….

IF I don’t want guns in my house, your 2A rights end at MY property line…also, if you like John F Kerry, that’s fine, but you can’t hold a Kerry for President rally ON MY PROPERTY, no matter how much you wave the 1st A “right to assemble” under my nose.

Under the law we are EQUALS, and on my property my desires win out…. anything other than that says we are NOT equals, but you are my Superior, and that is not what the Constitution is about.

JFKY on March 4, 2013 at 6:40 PM

.
You mean … you’re a ‘dictator’ on your own private property ?

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I don’t remember jumping on the bandwagon to nominate the good doctor in the 2016 primaries; if I did, I was foolish. If not, there’s a good reason I held back.

It pays to listen to everything people say, and weigh it against your values, no matter which side of the political coin you’re on.

theotherone on March 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Your right to own a semiautomatic set your own election laws should depend on where you live.

Montana and Alaska can set their election law without DOJ approval. Why not SC, Alabama, and the others?

Is this where we’re heading? Regional rules? Isn’t that anti-federalism, and the exact same thing the federal government is taking away from the states bit by bit?

Ahhhh…..the word fails me. Whats the process where one states’ regulation/law has to be recognized in another?….brain fart…

So what the good Dr. is suggesting is that the federal government should decide who is entitled to the unabridged Constitution, and who gets the modified version.

Is that a conservative, nay, is that an American concept?

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

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

Call it “inside baseball” if you missed the context. SWalker didn’t and I think we are on the same page, or at least the same chapter anyway.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Wink wink, nod nod, say no more… ;)

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM

You mean … you’re a ‘dictator’ on your own private property ?

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I prefer ‘Emperor’.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Yup.

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 7:00 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

“Congress shall pass no law…”
I, on the other hand, may throw you the hell off my property if I don’t like your speech.

Ronnie on March 4, 2013 at 7:02 PM

It just occurred to me. The Constitution provides private property rights, along with speech, religion, arms, search and seizure, etc. The Castle Doctrine is a long held canon, and is not what Crazy Joe Biden is suggesting by firing through a door.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Had to step away.

But that was going to be my point. The Constitution does provides for a host of rights, including those associated with private property. I don’t (generally) have a right to your private property, so no, I don’t have a right to go on your property while carrying a gun, without a gun, in the rain, or while in pain.

I’m also of the opinion that no one right is unlimited, which further restricts me from running in your house waving a .44.

However, I don’t know how a person justifies any restriction on an unlimited right. My point being that there is no way someone can realistically believe the 2nd amendment is an unlimited right.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM

You mean … you’re a ‘dictator’ on your own private property ?

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I prefer ‘Emperor’.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Hmmm, Emperor Bob… Has a, ummm, nice ring to it… If your name happens to be Bob I suppose… lol lol lol ;p

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Does he have a follow-up segment on Mouth Control for Doctor Flatline?

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM

No, but he does reposition Dr. Carson’s magnet on his chalk board in light of his 2nd amendment stance. That’s not why I recommended the show, though.

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 7:05 PM

My point being that there is no way someone can realistically believe the 2nd amendment is an unlimited right.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Very few people think the Second Amendment, or any amendment is an unlimited right.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Montana and Alaska can set their election law without DOJ approval. Why not SC, Alabama, and the others?

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

The latter states could not because their laws infringed on the rights of their citizens. It’s as simple as they. They wrote and enforced unconstitutional laws, and the federal government took away their ability to do so in a constitutional way.

I think the laws put in place were effective and no longer needed, but I don’t think that what was done was wrong in any way.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Very few people think the Second Amendment, or any amendment is an unlimited right.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM

I agree. But if we agree that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, why is a discussion of those limits always portrayed as wanting to remove the right completely? If it’s limited, then gun control isn’t unconstitutional.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

“Congress shall pass no law…”
I, on the other hand, may throw you the hell off my property if I don’t like your speech.

Ronnie on March 4, 2013 at 7:02 PM

I agree. The first amendment is much better written than the second.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:14 PM

The latter states could not because their laws infringed on the rights of their citizens. It’s as simple as they. They wrote and enforced unconstitutional laws, and the federal government took away their ability to do so in a constitutional way.

I think the laws put in place were effective and no longer needed, but I don’t think that what was done was wrong in any way.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:10 PM

So having two sets of rules concerning the same right is ok? It all depends on where you live, right? How many voting age citizens of those states weren’t born when the DixieCrats pulled those shenanigans? Why are they being punished for the actions of men dead long ago, considering the fact the rules were corrected?

What if those men had moved to Iowa and started the same crap there? Would SC be released from the federal rule and then Iowa subject to it?

Is that regulation fair to all the citizens of the states subject federal approval of a Constitutional right? Sins of the father, eh?

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I have not read Dr. Carson’s book and he has a compelling life story but I don’t know who he is so I’m not joining his political fan club…..

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I am with you. After he gave that speech at the prayer breakfast, which I thought was great, I did not jump on the bandwagon like some people did because I didn’t know enough about him, but then when I was watching Glenn Beck’s show with Dr. Carson last week I paused the program about half way through and wrote here at HA that it was a great show and that I was “warming up” to the Dr. Then I resumed watching the rest of the show and heard his opinion about the 2nd amendment. :(

I didn’t actually jump on his bandwagon, of course, but still I wish I would have watched the rest of the show before commenting.

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 7:15 PM

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM

If I’m not mistaken, even Justice Scalia thinks that there can be limitations.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Chicago’s a densely populated area, and I sure as hell would want 30-rounds (minimum) at the ready if I ever had to walk around there at night.

Bruce MacMahon on March 4, 2013 at 7:21 PM

But if we agree that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, why is a discussion of those limits always portrayed as wanting to remove the right completely? If it’s limited, then gun control isn’t unconstitutional.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

I don’t think you, or Dr Carson really understand what the Second Amendment actually is.

It isn’t about ducks, and it isn’t about burglars.

It is about hunting down and killing other men who have taken it upon themselves to oppress their fellow man.

The tools required to do that killing are an essential part of the intent of the amendment. If you remove those tools, you have gutted the amendment. Shotguns are fine for duck hunting, or home defense if you ask Slow Joe, but a well regulated militia that can take on an oppressive government requires something more.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 7:21 PM

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 7:15 PM

It’s tough and it will only get tougher as 2016 approaches. I am leaving my mind open just short of my brains falling out. Did y’all see over at Mediaite that Bill Cosby is comparing the time “honored” tradition of the opposing party not standing at everything the president says at the SOTU to segregationists? Do you think he disapproved when the Dems sat on their hands for W?

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 7:21 PM

So having two sets of rules concerning the same right is ok? It all depends on where you live, right? How many voting age citizens of those states weren’t born when the DixieCrats pulled those shenanigans? Why are they being punished for the actions of men dead long ago, considering the fact the rules were corrected?

What if those men had moved to Iowa and started the same crap there? Would SC be released from the federal rule and then Iowa subject to it?

Is that regulation fair to all the citizens of the states subject federal approval of a Constitutional right? Sins of the father, eh?

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I did say that I didn’t think they were still needed. However, at the time, they were very much needed. It wasn’t sins of the father at all. The people, as represented by their elected officials, disenfranchised the citizens of their state in a blatantly unconstitutional manner. If the federal government can’t step in in that situation, when can the government enforce the Constitution that the states(more or less) signed into?

Again, I don’t think the level of oversight is needed at a federal level currently. However, it was needed and completely justifiable. States must respect the Constitution as much as the federal government.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:22 PM

This ammo thing is more pressing. Perhaps the whole debate is a squirrel.

When I can’t find .22′s,, and dhs is buying armor….

We have a larger problem. Cardin is small issue.

The feds are sucking up the supply. This is a very crap my pants scary thing.

I don’t care about Cardin, we may not get that far. I don’t like it one bit that the feds are sucking up hollowpoints. I’m no conspiracy nut, but it’s right in front of our faces. I fear this is as bad as it looks.

wolly4321 on March 4, 2013 at 7:23 PM

I don’t think you, or Dr Carson really understand what the Second Amendment actually is.

It isn’t about ducks, and it isn’t about burglars.

It is about hunting down and killing other men who have taken it upon themselves to oppress their fellow man.

The tools required to do that killing are an essential part of the intent of the amendment. If you remove those tools, you have gutted the amendment. Shotguns are fine for duck hunting, or home defense if you ask Slow Joe, but a well regulated militia that can take on an oppressive government requires something more.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 7:21 PM

So you don’t support any restrictions as it pertains to the second amendment?

Either you do or you don’t. If you don’t, then you don’t. If you do, then I don’t see how you can claim another’s view of what would be a legitimate restriction is based on a failure of understanding.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:25 PM

However, I don’t know how a person justifies any restriction on an unlimited right. My point being that there is no way someone can realistically believe the 2nd amendment is an unlimited right.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM

That’s probably because you do not understand the terms and words employed in the 2nd amendment. That or you are intentionally being dense and obtuse.

Shall Not, “Shall” derives from the Old English “sceal” meaning “must“, thus “Shall Not” has the meaning of “Must Not”.

in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/
Verb

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.

Therefor the meaning of “Shall not be infringed” is and was clearly and indisputably intended to be an absolute restriction on the Government, both Federal and State, making r passing any laws that would limit or undermine or encroach upon the individual citizens right to own or bear a firearm.

Furthermore, since the 2nd amendment also includes the phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” the Founding Fathers intentions regarding the nature of the arms employed in the following phrase (the right of the people to keep and bear arms) are equally well defined and rendered by intention as absolute.

In other words, they said unequivocally, that the arms in question for which the Government is strictly and expressly forbidden to regulate, restrict or prohibit or infringe upon, are specifically those arms that would be required for the citizen to maintain a well regulated militia.

Militia’s are comprised of free citizens who bare entirely the cost of their own arms, training, uniforms and such material support as may be required to perform the actions of a Civilian Military Force. They are not government funded organization, nor are they government employes.

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 7:30 PM

So you don’t support any restrictions as it pertains to the second amendment?

Either you do or you don’t. If you don’t, then you don’t. If you do, then I don’t see how you can claim another’s view of what would be a legitimate restriction is based on a failure of understanding.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:25 PM

The world is not simply made up of binary choices.

I do see that there can be limitations on the Second Amendment, but do not accept limitations that are effectively nullifying that amendment.

If your First Amendment rights are granted to you in full, but only if you speak in Esperanto, then they have been functionally nullified.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 7:32 PM

1st amendment restriction- you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, right? That was the argument?

What is there IS a fire?

It’s no cooincidence this debate is happening now. The movie theatre is on fire.

wolly4321 on March 4, 2013 at 7:33 PM

The last time I checked the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms and that no restrictions can be placed upon that right…by anyone.

easyt65 on March 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Translation: Your 2nd Amendment depend on where you live. Strange, I thought the 14th Amendment fixed that.

Is Dr. Carson advocating the repeal of the 14th Amendment?

unclesmrgol on March 4, 2013 at 7:36 PM

I should see a guy who used to work at Olin tonight when I go in to work. I’ll ask him whats up.

tom daschle concerned on March 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Please let all of us here know what he says.

PatriotGal2257 on March 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM

States and towns should be able to regulate the sale and carrying of guns in their own jurisdiction as long as they don’t try to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining them somewhere else and keeping them in their own home. If you don’t like the gun laws where you live it’s simple…just move on. Hiding behind the government nanny will never solve the problem.

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Any other Amendment to the U.S. Constitution you’d like to restrict?

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Oops.

Translation: Your 2nd Amendment rights depend on where you live. Strange, I thought the 14th Amendment fixed that.

Is Dr. Carson advocating the repeal of the 14th Amendment?

unclesmrgol on March 4, 2013 at 7:36 PM

unclesmrgol on March 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM

I have Constitutional Rights, too…YOURS are not more important than mine…one of which is a right to private property.

My House; My Rules….Your rights end when they conflict or over-ride mine….
IF I don’t want guns in my house, your 2A rights end at MY property line…also, if you like John F Kerry, that’s fine, but you can’t hold a Kerry for President rally ON MY PROPERTY, no matter how much you wave the 1st A “right to assemble” under my nose.

JFKY on March 4, 2013 at 6:40 PM

.
You mean … you’re a ‘dictator’ on your own private property ?

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:58 PM
.

I prefer ‘Emperor’.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM

.
Hmmm, Emperor Bob… Has a, ummm, nice ring to it… If your name happens to be Bob I suppose… lol lol lol ;p

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 7:04 PM

.
How does Emperor JFKY sound ?

He (or she) is the start of this.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:22 PM

I guess the difference is that people took their 2nd Amendment rights to court in Chicago and D.C. where they were prohibited from owning a gun but no one has taken NYC (that I know of) to court that they make a carry permit nearly impossible to get. Then there are states with and without open carry.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Yeah, sorry, but no.

Midas on March 4, 2013 at 7:39 PM

The world is not simply made up of binary choices.

I do see that there can be limitations on the Second Amendment, but do not accept limitations that are effectively nullifying that amendment.

If your First Amendment rights are granted to you in full, but only if you speak in Esperanto, then they have been functionally nullified.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Fair enough.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:42 PM

How does Emperor JFKY sound ?

He (or she) is the start of this.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Hey, just saying since it was Bob who said he preferred Emperor, that Emperor Bob, to someone named Bob, probably probably does have a nice ring to it… ;p lol lol lol

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 7:43 PM

I guess the difference is that people took their 2nd Amendment rights to court in Chicago and D.C. where they were prohibited from owning a gun but no one has taken NYC (that I know of) to court that they make a carry permit nearly impossible to get. Then there are states with and without open carry.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 7:38 PM

I don’t support laws made at the local level that attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. D.C’s law was just dumb.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM

(LMAO, while typing this) … : )

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Yeah. Nobody agrees with me. But they should. Because I’m right.

besser tot als rot on March 4, 2013 at 7:52 PM

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 6:06 PM

The super scary strawman is a way of illustrating with hyperbole the issue of what comprises ‘arms’ as used in the Constitution. If a person agrees that no one should have a nuke in their basement, then they have drawn a line, somewhere, about what is and is not acceptable for private ownership.

I don’t know what the definition of an ‘arm’ is, but the best I’ve heard so far is “in common use”, relative to the current time.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 6:39 PM

The Constitution is the Law of the Land. If there is a disagreement with it, then there is a procedure to Amend it. Let them do so.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

In other words, they said unequivocally, that the arms in question for which the Government is strictly and expressly forbidden to regulate, restrict or prohibit or infringe upon, are specifically those arms that would be required for the citizen to maintain a well regulated militia.

Militia’s are comprised of free citizens who bare entirely the cost of their own arms, training, uniforms and such material support as may be required to perform the actions of a Civilian Military Force. They are not government funded organization, nor are they government employes.

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Firstly, a your description of a militia is inaccurate. The only difference between a militia and the military is that members of the military are professional soldiers while members of a militia are not. The militias during the revolutionary war error were provided both arms and uniforms by their local governments.

Secondly, you’re adding meaning to statements where this is none. The second amendment says absolutely nothing about the type of weapon a person could own. You’re trying to justify the addition of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, and twisting yourself in a pretzel in doing so.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

I fear many of those “self-inflicted” wounds are the actions of Fifth Columnists” on the “Right” who destroy from the inside at the same time the Left destroys it from the outside.
hawkeye54 on March 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Always somebody else’s fault, huh? Always a perpetrator. Never any personal responsibility. Always victims.

Yeah, Hawkeye, it’s all those evil conspirators out to subjugate and victimize you as good Christian radio listening conservatives.

RAMPANT victim mentality.

Genuine on March 4, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Um, no. It’s about as far away from the Victim Mentality as you can get. Remember Van Jones and his “Top Down, Bottom Up, Inside Out” Theory? It’s a favorite Commie tactic to deliberately foment unrest and to disguise their own hand in it while controlling it all the while. It’s entirely possible that there might be some infiltrators on the Right who are actually Leftists charged with the task of doing just that. I think what everyone underestimates is just how serious and intent the Left is on destruction of this country. While I’ve heard much about their tactics, I’ve not heard one concrete thing that any person could do to fight it.

PatriotGal2257 on March 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM

But isn’t it odd what has been taken to court and what hasn’t? Or at least what has made it through the entire labyrinth up to SCOTUS.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 7:58 PM

The right to bear arms is first and foremost a natural right.

The Constitution lends legal reinforcement.

To regard personal arms primarily as a Constitutional right misses the point.

Saltysam on March 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM

What part of “shall not be infringed” doesn’t this blog understand?

southsideironworks on March 4, 2013 at 8:08 PM

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Call it “inside baseball” if you missed the context. SWalker didn’t and I think we are on the same page, or at least the same chapter anyway.

VorDaj on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

If you two were having an “inside baseball” conversation, then you didn’t need to respond to me. Maybe I missed the “context” because as far as I was concerned, there wasn’t any.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:11 PM

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 7:30 PM

.
Firstly, a your description of a militia is inaccurate. The only difference between a militia and the military is that members of the military are professional soldiers while members of a militia are not. The militias during the revolutionary war error were provided both arms and uniforms by their local governments.

Secondly, you’re adding meaning to statements where this is none. The second amendment says absolutely nothing about the type of weapon a person could own. You’re trying to justify the addition of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, and twisting yourself in a pretzel in doing so.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

.
Militia are NOT to take orders from ANY Agency of the Government, unless they temporarily agree to do so in an emergency, or crisis.

Yes, that includes State.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Speaking of Blaze TV and the 2nd amendment, I highly recommend watching Glenn Beck’s program today, (Dish channel 212), on the topic of gun control.

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Thanks. I have Directv and called them last week about adding it to our lineup. Problem is everyone I know has Directv, LOL So I can’t even go to my family members’ house.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

The cult of personality on the right is as feeble as it comes. I sure wish that people didn’t keep trying to coronate every person of race that surfaces with some harsh words for Obama or “Conservative tendencies”. Fascination with race is akin to racism.

Levinite on March 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

(LMAO, while typing this) … : )

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 6:39 PM

.
Yeah. Nobody agrees with me. But they should. Because I’m right.

besser tot als rot on March 4, 2013 at 7:52 PM

.
Yep, thank God I’m perfect. Too bad about the rest of the poor, unworthy slobs out there.
.
I should maybe change my HA username to “TheGreatArrogantEgocentricManiac“, or something similar.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM

.
Thanks. I have Directv and called them last week about adding it to our lineup. Problem is everyone I know has Directv, LOL So I can’t even go to my family members’ house.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

.
$9.00 a month gets you access to ALL of Glenn’s material, on demand.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM

It really sounds as if Carson doesn’t know what a semi-automatic is. It’s a lightning round answer and he doesn’t expand on his response. I get the impression he is conflating semi-auto with full “automatic.”

dugan on March 4, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Very few people think the Second Amendment, or any amendment is an unlimited right.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM

“Unlimited” is, to me, an unfair term in this argument. As far as the Federal government is concerned, the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an unlimited right…in a sense. If, say, the fourth and/or fifth amendments are enacted in search and seizure of property (thinking mostly of weapons here), then it has to be in accordance with the Constitution which the various officers of government have sworn to uphold. They honestly have to believe you’re guilty of a crime before they act.

The Second Amendment doesn’t restrict the number, type or caliber of firearms that the average citizen can own. To me, having to pay special taxes on automatic weapons is un-Constitutional, as well as having to obtain special licensing for certain weapons.

To believe that civilians are less trustworthy with respect to owning certain armaments, but the military can be trusted is a wholly un-Constitutional argument. It goes against the very reason the Second Amendment was enacted.

So, I believe you or I should be able to obtain and own an M-60 machine gun if we wanted it and could of course meet the purchase price from the seller.

I find it astonishing that not once in our country’s history has any Senator, governor, etc. advocated simply giving away surplus armaments to those Citizens that wanted them. It shows that no politician, from George Washington, on up has ever really trusted us. They crossed their fingers and hoped we wouldn’t “act up”.

Also of concern to me is that all of us able-bodied Citizens are not enrolled in a local Militia (the National Guard is not the same thing, it effectively neutralizes a huge chunk of the Second Amendment), and that we Citizens have been completely shut out of the area of law enforcement…how often are common Citizens deputized?

We the Sheeple.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 4, 2013 at 8:34 PM

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

.
$9.00 a month gets you access to ALL of Glenn’s material, on demand.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Would that be online only?

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM

It really sounds as if Carson doesn’t know what a semi-automatic is. It’s a lightning round answer and he doesn’t expand on his response. I get the impression he is conflating semi-auto with full “automatic.”

dugan on March 4, 2013 at 8:31 PM

.
My impression, as well. He may be “low information” as pertains to any hands-on knowledge of firearms.
OR . . . . . he may be a military veteran, with more experience than I.

This will play-out some more, then we can better ‘assess’ his position.

As it stands now, we can simply disagree with what he said.
Hopefully he will change.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:41 PM

To believe that civilians are less trustworthy with respect to owning certain armaments, but the military can be trusted is a wholly un-Constitutional argument. It goes against the very reason the Second Amendment was enacted.

So, I believe you or I should be able to obtain and own an M-60 machine gun if we wanted it and could of course meet the purchase price from the seller.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 4, 2013 at 8:34 PM

I think this is reasonable, but as I said I don’t think that fully automatic weapons are essential to maintaining the intent of the Second Amendment.

At some point you still have to draw a line. Anthrax or weaponized Smallpox for example is a military weapon, but I don’t think that it is needed to secure freedom.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 8:43 PM

$9.00 a month gets you access to ALL of Glenn’s material, on demand.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM

.
Would that be online only?

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM

.
Yes, my humble apologies for forgetting to include the word ‘internet’ in my first response to you. It should have read like this:

$9.00 a month gets you internet access to ALL of Glenn’s material, on demand.

.
( s i g h ) … So much for my “perfection” status.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:46 PM

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM

.
Yes, my humble apologies for forgetting to include the word ‘internet’ in my first response to you. It should have read like this:

$9.00 a month gets you internet access to ALL of Glenn’s material, on demand.

.
( s i g h ) … So much for my “perfection” status.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:46 PM

All Gulch members have a lot of leeway:-)

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM

It really sounds as if Carson doesn’t know what a semi-automatic is. It’s a lightning round answer and he doesn’t expand on his response. I get the impression he is conflating semi-auto with full “automatic.”

dugan on March 4, 2013 at 8:31 PM

That’s possible. I think he did the same thing when he made the remark about CPAC and “big tent”; confusing it to the Republican Party.

If he did as you say, he better get out front and make a correction fast!! I’m sure he’s taking a lot of heat!!

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM

First of all, I believe in the right to bear arms. I have several firearms and will soon have a concealed handgun permit. But the constitution restricts the federal government, not the right of the people to self govern. Which in my opinion would include the right of the people to regulate gun ownership in their community. Or make whatever stupid law they want in order to live their lives in a way that makes sense to them. You may want to argue that the right to liberty is absolute but where is that the reality?

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM

But the constitution restricts the federal government, not the right of the people to self govern. Which in my opinion would include the right of the people to regulate gun ownership in their community.

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM

What about the other amendments? Can they be restricted on a local basis as well?

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 8:55 PM

I believe you or I should be able to obtain and own an M-60 machine gun if we wanted it and could of course meet the purchase price from the seller.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 4, 2013 at 8:34 PM

.
I think this is reasonable, but as I said I don’t think that fully automatic weapons are essential to maintaining the intent of the Second Amendment.

At some point you still have to draw a line. Anthrax or weaponized Smallpox for example is a military weapon, but I don’t think that it is needed to secure freedom.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 8:43 PM

.
I still say State regulation for full-auto, but get the Feds out of it.

But please understand, I’m NOT holding it against you if you’re for “unregulated” full-auto.

It’s just my opinion, and I’m not perfect ( my 8:21 PM comment notwithstanding ).

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM

( s i g h ) … So much for my “perfection” status.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:46 PM

.
All Gulch members have a lot of leeway:-)

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM

.
YEE-HAW ! ….. I’ll take it. : )

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:59 PM

You know, to play a devil’s advocate…

What the hell do I care if blue state crowded liberals are outgunned by people in more rural areas.

But do understand that this becomes incrementalism

WryTrvllr on March 4, 2013 at 9:01 PM

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Firstly, a your description of a militia is inaccurate. The only difference between a militia and the military is that members of the military are professional soldiers while members of a militia are not. The militias during the revolutionary war error were provided both arms and uniforms by their local governments.

Secondly, you’re adding meaning to statements where this is none. The second amendment says absolutely nothing about the type of weapon a person could own. You’re trying to justify the addition of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, and twisting yourself in a pretzel in doing so.

segasagez on March 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

So, basically what you’re saying here, is that you don’t know your a$$ from a hole in the ground that that your reading comprehension level is around the third grade.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

The Federalist Papers, No. 29

SWalker on March 4, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7