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 3 4 5 6 7

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.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM

I am ambivalent about full-auto because I never honestly thought that it added much to a military weapon.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:02 PM

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

Semi-automatic hand guns have been around almost a century. Semi-automatic assault weapons rifles almost as long.

All of that time Americans have been able to buy them and own them.

The Second Amendment assured this right and it was not really questioned or challenged.

Now suddenly the leftist fascists think this right should be heavily conditional… After a century… Because… Well, because they think it’s best… because they know what is best for everyone. Because that’s what power hungry control freak fascists always think.

farsighted on March 4, 2013 at 9:07 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

Nope, you read me right. The government does not allow the manufacture of new, full auto guns to be sold to the public. There are some circuitous ways that one could get a newer full auto gun; police departments are allowed to give (or sell) them to an officer when he or she retires if it was their duty weapon, iirc. And they can then transfer the gun. But other than that you’re left with the existing stock we had in 1986.

So the supply is very strictly limited by the government, to that pool of existing guns. The difference between that and the zoning law analogy is that I can still find a home somewhere else at a price I can afford. I can’t find a full auto gun anywhere, even though the market price for those should be essentially the same as for the same model in semi-auto, not 10x higher.

TexasDan on March 4, 2013 at 9:07 PM

I live in the USoA where my right to own a weapon is God-given and shall not be infringed.

davidk on March 4, 2013 at 9:07 PM

I live in the USoA where my right to own a weapon is God-given and shall not be infringed.

davidk on March 4, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Not if wishy-washy simps like Dr. Ben Carson get their way. The dude is a brilliant speaker and neurosurgeon, but that’s where his expertise ends. He apparently doesn’t know shit about what “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Oopsy Dr Carson…You sure put your foot in it didn’t you eh?

Perhaps he will explain his reasoning on this?

Perhaps it’s like saying,”I got a snake under my desk.”

When what he really meant was…dang I forgot! Lol

Perhaps the good Dr didn’t mean what he said.

Anyhoo, he’s obviously not the Neo!

Scrumpy on March 4, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Perhaps the good Dr didn’t mean what he said.

Anyhoo, he’s obviously not the Neo!

Scrumpy on March 4, 2013 at 9:13 PM

I don’t think there’s any need for Dr. Carson to walk back his opinion. I would think less of him as a person if he did. This does serve to reinforce my belief that he will not run for federal office.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

The people on this thread have jump the gun. Pun intended. Dr. Carson is an honorable man and we would all be lucky if he decided to run for office. God knows the conservative movement needs a bunch of people like him in high office! But the conservative movement doesn’t deserve a person like Dr. Carson if the people on this thread are representative of conservatives as a whole (I am a conservative and so I will not paint the whole movement with the broad brush of the idiocy on this thread).

In any case, there is nothing in what Dr. Carson said that is disqualifying. It was a snippet in a lightning round. The man never said he is running for office, much less the presidency and yet, the pitch forks are out in force to tear him down, not from the media mind you, but from those on the RIGHT who favor other candidates in 2016. It’s a sad spectacle and all the more sad because of who these people are tearing down. A man of such accomplishment, we couldn’t have dreamed would share our thoughts and values and it’s no wonder not many in his position do.

As far as I am concerned, I don’t feel bad for conservatives anymore. You all will continue to divide yourselves and the GOP will keep nominating RINOs because you can’t even give a man as conservative as Dr. Carson a chance. That’s how low this movement has gone. If Dr. Carson isn’t good enough for you all, then who is??

Here’s the rest of the lightning round for those interested in seeing
more than a snippet of the man. And why not try to read some of the books this man has written rather than be led by sheep by a headline?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBkgYITkEQY

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

In any case, there is nothing in what Dr. Carson said that is disqualifying.

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Not if you don’t give a shit about the constitution and the meaning of the words “…shall not be infringed.” It’s bad enough that we put someone in office for two terms who is actively hostile to the constitution. We’re actually entertaining the thought of putting someone into office to succeed that individual who is ignorant of the constitution? The stupidity just infuriates me!

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 9:17 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

I can probably fire my semi-auto AR15 at a rate that exceeds my ability to properly aim the weapon. Going to ban those, too? Or maybe you’d like it if my semi-auto gun had a governor.

I don’t give two cents for anyone else’s opinion of the controllability of a given weapon at a given rate of fire. That’s going to be highly dependent upon the size and skill of the operator. And if a little old lady feels like she’d have a greater likelihood of making a hit with a MAC-10 pistol, and she lives alone with her cats on the farm somewhere where she knows she won’t hit anything she couldn’t live without, she ought to have that option. The value of the president’s life is not greater than hers or yours or mine. And if the real reason for the second amendment is to maintain the power of the people over and against the government, and it is, and if there are some tactical reasons to want full auto, and there are, then we ought not to roll over on the concept of civilian ownership of full auto guns. Just like in that gun-ravaged shithole, Switzerland.

They do indeed sell full-auto guns to LEO. I have no idea how many, or if any at all, are actually sold. But my knower tells me they wouldn’t be for sale if no one ever bought them. Does that make you want one now?

TexasDan on March 4, 2013 at 9:18 PM

But the conservative movement doesn’t deserve a person like Dr. Carson

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

I thought it was Romney we didn’t deserve?

Or Condi Rice?

Or Herman Cain?

Or General Petraeus?

Or Chris Christie?

There are so many out there that we just don’t deserve!

How sad for us!

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:19 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

While I tend to agree with you in theory, I find it just a ridiculous to jump on a bandwagon as I do writing people off three years out from the election. I have no idea if we would be lucky to have Dr. Carson run as Republican or if he is even interested. I don’t have enough information.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:20 PM

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Yeah, I don’t need anymore people running for office that I don’t deserve. I’m not sure that we will recover from the one that’s too good for us now.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:22 PM

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 8:55 PM

What’s being restricted by the constitution is the power of the federal government. That doesn’t or should not restrict the power of the people to self govern or grant power to the federal government if we so choose. Which we have and will continue to do in order to form a more perfect union which was obviously the founders’ most ardent intent. I think laws restricting gun ownership by law abiding citizens are stupid, but I do agree that criminals that use guns while committing violent crimes should have time tacked on to their sentence. If that makes me anti-second amendment then so be it.

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Yeah, I don’t need anymore people running for office that I don’t deserve. I’m not sure that we will recover from the one that’s too good for us now.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:22 PM

You and me both!

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Oh, how people quickly throw you to the wolves! Dr. Carson before this lightning round was the epitome of what conservatism was all about. How foolish I was to think he was a conservative, when he was a progressive in conservative clothing! I mean, everything that ever came out of his mouth was conservative to my ears. Silly me! His voice from hence forth should be banished!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYvHGZieYIk&playnext=1&list=PLyA8vudpFVX-ffdHQ7nT8r7r0fncsNivG&feature=results_main

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:29 PM

What’s being restricted by the constitution is the power of the federal government. That doesn’t or should not restrict the power of the people to self govern or grant power to the federal government if we so choose. Which we have and will continue to do in order to form a more perfect union which was obviously the founders’ most ardent intent. I think laws restricting gun ownership by law abiding citizens are stupid, but I do agree that criminals that use guns while committing violent crimes should have time tacked on to their sentence. If that makes me anti-second amendment then so be it.

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 9:26 PM

So should blacks be able to be prevented from voting as granted in the Fifteenth Amendment? Or does this local power only apply to the Second Amendment?

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:29 PM

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:29 PM

WTF. Who is trying to prevent blacks from voting? If you’re going to use a strawman at least use one that makes some sense.
And do you mean to tell me that you’re okay with convicted felons or even parolees possessing firearms?

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

But the conservative movement doesn’t deserve a person like Dr. Carson

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

You’re right-we ‘deserve’ someone who understands the constitution!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 9:37 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Ben Carson is just the most recent in a line of ‘saviors’. I’m not interested in a savior.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 9:39 PM

WTF. Who is trying to prevent blacks from voting? If you’re going to use a strawman at least use one that makes some sense.

What’s being restricted by the constitution is the power of the federal government.

This is what you said. If it only applies to the federal government then it wouldn’t apply to the states. If all amendments apply even at the local level then so does the Second Amendment and your federal argument is moot.

And do you mean to tell me that you’re okay with convicted felons or even parolees possessing firearms?

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

No, I think reasonable restrictions should be applied to any amendment.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Last I checked sharrukin, the mentally unstable among us are still citizens. Do you think they should have unfettered access to firearms? Using your “logic” there can be absolutely no restriction whatsoever yes?

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

I have no idea if we would be lucky to have Dr. Carson run as Republican or if he is even interested. I don’t have enough information.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:20 PM

And yet, there are those who are ready to toss this man off of a cliff based on a lightning round. As I said, this man has not announced he is running for any office, much less the presidency and these people on this thread are treating him like a candidate. It’s unbelievable! We are lucky a man in his position is espousing any type of conservative ideals and we need to keep him in our tent not ostracize him because he was perhaps inartful in a lightning round. Does that make sense?

There are people on this thread that are putting in the league of 2016 candidates! On what basis? Anyhow, I appreciate Dr. Carson and I look forward to his CPAC speech and I hope he continues to speak out of behalf of American values as he did at the prayer breakfast. My advice to him is to forget about the conservative movement. It’s a waste. Conservatives now are of the mentality of destroying anyone in the name of purity. We deserve what we end up with in 2016. It’ll be another RINO and you all will have to vote for that person, because of idiocy like what has occurred on this thread. You push a person like Dr. Carson out on the account of purity and wind up with Jeb Bush as nominee and Hillary as president. Bravo, idiots!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYvHGZieYIk&playnext=1&list=PLyA8vudpFVX-ffdHQ7nT8r7r0fncsNivG&feature=results_main

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Personality cultism is sooo Obamanutish.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 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

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Last I checked sharrukin, the mentally unstable among us are still citizens. Do you think they should have unfettered access to firearms? Using your “logic” there can be absolutely no restriction whatsoever yes?

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Nope, I just don’t see what your argument regarding the federal government applies here.

But the constitution restricts the federal government, not the right of the people to self govern.

The constitution also restricts at the local level or as I said, blacks could be prevented from voting at the state level.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

He hasn’t said he wants to run and you are accusing people of running him off, settle down.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Ben Carson is just the most recent in a line of ‘saviors’. I’m not interested in a savior.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 9:39 PM

You see? This is the idiocy I am talking about. When did Dr. Carson announce his candidacy for anything? Then how the hell can he be consider a savior by anyone of any sort? This is ridiculous! We should appreciate Dr. Carson because he spoke up where others cowered in front of this president. He spoke pure unadulterated conservatism and made the president and media take it, because of his impeccable credentials. But I am suppose to take the word of the little twerps on this thread about political courage and true conservatism. Yeah riiight!!

Again, we would be lucky if Dr. Carson ever decided to run for any office. That’s what the people on this thread don’t understand. He doesn’t have to run and make your lives better. He’s good to go. That he’s out there speaking to you all (Fox, CPAC, Beck, etc), when you all are already out with pitch forks is incredible. You all don’t deserve him with the nonsense I’ve read in these comments. Savior? You presume a bit much and don’t flatter yourselves! I don’t speak for Dr. Carson, but I got the good sense to know I want him on our side than on the Left! I hope and prayer he doesn’t read the crap that’s been written on this thread today.

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM

The biggest fraud in this story are the statistics.

Virtually ALL of the big cities have had MANY gun restrictions throughout the time frames where the crime statistics are gathered.

In other words, those statistics actually PROVE that more gun control leads to MORE violence!

Freddy on March 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

He hasn’t said he wants to run and you are accusing people of running him off, settle down.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Can you imagine the unholy fit milemarker and others will throw when Dr. Carson announces that he’s not going to run?

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Down goes Carson! Down goes Carson!

cptacek on March 4, 2013 at 9:53 PM

The vast majority of gun homicides are from hand guns, and the nearly all of those hand guns are semi-automatic. There are way too many people who do not understand what semi-auto, which really just semi-auto-bullet-chambering. Semi-auto has nothing to do with firing the gun, just loading the bullet into the chamber.

Dasher on March 4, 2013 at 9:53 PM

The people on this thread have jump the gun. Pun intended. Dr. Carson is an honorable man and we would all be lucky if he decided to run for office. God knows the conservative movement needs a bunch of people like him in high office! But the conservative movement doesn’t deserve a person like Dr. Carson if the people on this thread are representative of conservatives as a whole (I am a conservative and so I will not paint the whole movement with the broad brush of the idiocy on this thread).
In any case, there is nothing in what Dr. Carson said tha


You all will continue to divide yourselves and the GOP will keep nominating RINOs because you can’t even give a man as conservative as Dr. Carson a chance. That’s how low this movement has gone. If Dr. Carson isn’t good enough for you all, then who is??
Here’s the rest of the lightning round for those interested in seeing
more than a snippet of the man. And why not try to read some of the books this man has written rather than be led by sheep by a headline?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBkgYITkEQY

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Very well said. You should comment here more often.

The peanut gallery regulars here, who all love to declare themselves on a higher, more pure conservative plane than everyone else,, are always so quick to throw anyone under the bus and call them a RINO if they ever utter a wrong word. Eventually every conservative gets disqualified by them over one thing or another.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Again, we would be lucky if Dr. Carson ever decided to run for any office. That’s what the people on this thread don’t understand.

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM

We do understand. We just don’t agree.

Defending the Second Amendment isn’t optional for a conservative we would want in office.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Voting rights laws for blacks was a power granted to the federal government by the people. But there are restriction placed on blacks that vote. They must be registered. And they must show up at a certain time and place which is set by the local government. They are also limited in who they can vote for based on their party affiliation and precinct etc…

mike_NC9 on March 4, 2013 at 9:55 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM

I’m sure Dr. Carson doesn’t consider himself a savior. It’s the people who take a nice little speech at the National Prayer Breakfast and put him forward as the answer to Obama. Let the man evolve from a great doctor into whatever it is he wants to do next. But first and foremost, he is not above reproach and if you can’t take criticism from those who like him, you are not going to survive what the media will do to him if he decides he wants to serve.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:58 PM

He hasn’t said he wants to run and you are accusing people of running him off, settle down.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Have you read this thread? If you were Dr. Carson and you read the thoughts of people you thought you were speaking up for, would you continue to speak up for them? I wouldn’t. I would just keep my opinions to myself and retire wealthy and continue my private charitable work and mourn the death of this nation, because with friends like these there’s no point. I just hope the group here isn’t who shows up at CPAC, because I want this man to continue to speak out and up for the conservative movement and Americans. If he decides to run for anything in the future, we would be lucky. But he’s liable to get shot by his own side with the attitude conservatives have today.

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 10:00 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I reserve the right to pick and choose portions thereof which I don’t want to preserve, protect and defend because I don’t believe the Constitution is correct in certain areas

“So help me God”

The italicized text is the part that gets edited out.

BobMbx on March 4, 2013 at 10:01 PM

He hasn’t said he wants to run and you are accusing people of running him off, settle down.
Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Cindy, there you are in your usual role of making excuses for the idiotic “I’m more conservative than you” jackassery that often passes for commentary on this site. I guess that kind of response was to be expected from you, since the majority of comments here are at odds with milemarker, and you have never once gone against majority opinion of comments on this site. You are way too predictable. It’s just a shame you have never once had the guts nor the integrity to stand up to some of the regulars when they attack dissenters in the most vile and disgusting ways. Coward and phony.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:01 PM

We do understand. We just don’t agree.

Defending the Second Amendment isn’t optional for a conservative we would want in office.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Keep waiting for the perfect candidate. That way, when we run everybody decent off and end up with some loser like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie and lose again in 2016, you and the rest of the TruCon brigade can lecture us about how we’d be winning if only we didn’t nominate losers.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Down goes Carson! Down goes Carson!

cptacek on March 4, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Man do I miss Cosell. Never another one like him.

can_con on March 4, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Keep waiting for the perfect candidate. That way, when we run everybody decent off and end up with some loser like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie and lose again in 2016, you and the rest of the TruCon brigade can lecture us about how we’d be winning if only we didn’t nominate losers.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Which good candidates got “ran off” in 2012 and by whom? I agree with those who say the 2nd amendment is non-negotiable. But then again, I can understand the plain English it was written in.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Well I have never been against liberals disarming themselves.

With that said the constitution is the constitution and alas Carson’s approach to this (he is not alone either) would create even greater regional divisions. Two ways you can view this. If you think this country is already doomed you might as well allow our idiotic future enemies to disarm themselves. However, if you still have hope for this country you should continue to defend the constitutional right of all Americans.

I am a big defender of the 2nd and this is disappointing to me. Some of our potential future leaders are so dam close to getting it right. For me this hurts Dr. Carson in my eyes, and it is not good but not Chris Christie bad. I will still give him a chance to clarify and also explain some of his other positions like foreign policy, etc. lets see if he grows some. I have the same view of Rubio now to. His foreign policy views are too dam Middle East centric as of now. The last thing this country needs is another president that wants to go off and fight around in a strategic backwater for the United States. One of the few, heck maybe only, things Obama did get right was a greater focus on Asia even if it is nothing but show. The rise of China could turn ugly, national socialist ugly, and we need to base our entire foreign policy and military grand strategy on managing China’s rise and preparing for the worst if god forbid it should ever happen.

I need to hear more from Dr. Carson and Rubio before I pass judgement on them. In fact the only two people I have written off ever voting for is Bush the III and Rinosaurus Rex of New Jersey.

William Eaton on March 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Keep waiting for the perfect candidate.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Obama would be fine as a candidate with your crew if he ran as a Republican.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 10:06 PM

The value of the president’s life is not greater than hers or yours or mine.

TexasDan on March 4, 2013 at 9:18 PM

.
If we eventually achieve “unregulated” possession/ownership of full-auto rifles/carbines/pistols, I won’t cry a tear over it.
But I stand by my earlier explanation,

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 5:23 PM

as to how I came to that conclusion.

But as regards the POTUS, I do believe that the SITTING President being assassinated would do FAR more harm to the country at large, than if any of the rest of us “commoners” were to be murdered.
Once a President stands down, then there becomes no more “value” to his (her?) life, than the rest of us.

My opinion.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:11 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

Am glad to hear that you are armed. You will be able to have a CC because your State hasn’t passed a law (yet) that would restrict you.

I’ll have to disagree that the Constitution restricts only the Federal Government. If a State or Local law violates the Constitution, then we have recourse to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 10:11 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Dr. Carson is unlikely to read what is said about him on blogs and will have to acquire a thick skin to serve. I find it troubling that you don’t want people to discuss their misgivings about any person.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Obama would be fine as a candidate with your crew if he ran as a Republican.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Cool, I love when people completely refuse to acknowledge the premise of a debate and just fling non sequiturs with no basis in reality like a monkey throwing its own feces.

Because clearly, accepting a candidate who doesn’t fit every single purity test for the sake of actually WINNING A ****ING ELECTION FOR ONCE is the same thing as nominating a Marxist America-hating super-liberal under a Republican banner.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Because clearly, accepting a candidate who doesn’t fit every single purity test for the sake of actually WINNING A ****ING ELECTION FOR ONCE is the same thing as nominating a Marxist America-hating super-liberal under a Republican banner.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:16 PM

We nominated Romney on the advice of the wishy-washy mushy middle. How’d that turn out for us?

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:18 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 10:00 PM

I don’t think this subject would keep Dr. Carson from continuing to be a spokesperson for conservative values if that’s what he wants to do. His experience as a surgeon in an urban area has obviously colored his views on the second amendment and I think that’s perfectly normal.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:19 PM

The Founders created the 2nd Amendment for a population that looked a lot like the population of North Dakota today. The 2nd Amendment is still a good idea for the state of North Dakota. It’s an absurd idea for a population that doesn’t look like North Dakota, and the Founders would have had no part in such insanity.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment and make guns a state issue. There are several safeguards that would have to go along with this. The Democrats would have to agree to the safeguards or we keep the 2nd in place without any infringements to the people’s right to keep and bear arms. They’ll have no one to blame except themselves for all future gun violence.

The safeguards will mean an end to all present and future usurpation of states powers by the federal government.

There will also be a union opt-out clause for states that don’t want to be a part of The Union if it doesn’t include the 2nd Amendment as part of its Constitution. You can’t force a state to stay when the union’s agenda changes.

Buddahpundit on March 4, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Cool, I love when people completely refuse to acknowledge the premise of a debate and just fling non sequiturs with no basis in reality like a monkey throwing its own feces.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Says the guy prancing back and forth spewing garbage about how ‘Trucons’ are demanding “a perfect candidate”.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 10:19 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

.
Very well said. You should comment here more often.

The peanut gallery regulars here, who all love to declare themselves on a higher, more pure conservative plane than everyone else,, are always so quick to throw anyone under the bus and call them a RINO if they ever utter a wrong word. Eventually every conservative gets disqualified by them over one thing or another.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM

.
But I am “on a higher, more pure conservative plane than everyone else”.

So are you, if you agree that Sarah Palin should be President.

Oops . . . . . . . . . .
.
I do agree that is “very well said”, milemarker’: )

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:20 PM

In fact let me say this about Christie. If you thought having Obama lecture us with speech after speech was bad enough, can you imagine everyday getting screamed at! I can see it now…”Americans I am your leader!”…”Give me your guns you ungrateful bastards!”…”I took away the violent video games from my own children…now it is your turn bitches!”…”I am your only hope!”…”Follow me now!”…”The Boss Rules, Yea! Born to Run!”

God what a nightmare….this is why I will not count out Dr. Carson, or Rubio, or Paul, or Ryan…or my dog…dear god I can’t believe I am going to say this…Romney. Christie will have 100% support from all the RINOs in the GOP and if you have not noticed there is a lot of them in this party. He has to be stopped by someone or we will have to vote for Hillary Clinton…wait for it…because she actually might be more conservative!

William Eaton on March 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM

It will be the “TruCons” fault. Whoever they are.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Dr. Carson is unlikely to read what is said about him on blogs and will have to acquire a thick skin to serve. I find it troubling that you don’t want people to discuss their misgivings about any person.
Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:14 PM

And I find it troubling that you would completely mischaracterize what milemarker said. Please try to be honest, Cindy. Milemarker is not criticizing people for merely expressing “misgivings”. He is talking about the overreaction of some commenters here.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM

I don’t look for perfection in my political candidates.I’m a anti-hunting conservatarian. Not many who think ‘exactly’ like me.
I will-and DO- criticize whom ever I choose.
3. You remind me of a Paulbot…or a Palinista.
At least Sarah Palin is conservative. Carson’s warped view of the second amendment indicates that while he may be conservative in some areas…he’s unacceptable in others.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 10:23 PM

Buddahpundit on March 4, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Considering how much the rules vary from state to state, isn’t that already the case for the most part?

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:23 PM

Milemarker is not criticizing people for merely expressing “misgivings”. He is talking about the overreaction of some commenters here.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Well I hope you don’t include me in that wide sweep with the broad brush. If calling Dr. Carson ignorant as concerns the constitution is some kind of “overreaction,” I’m not the one with the really thin skin here.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM

It will be the “TruCons” fault. Whoever they are.
Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Whoever they are? Is that some kind of joke? Do you ever read the comments here of the people you are so buddy-buddy with on here and regularly make excuses for? If you did, you would have your answer to who some of the TrueCons are.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM

He is talking about the overreaction of some commenters here.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM

That happens every day varying only by the commenter and the possible nominee. Yourself included. Dr. Carson doesn’t deserve any special hands off treatment.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Whoever they are? Is that some kind of joke? Do you ever read the comments here of the people you are so buddy-buddy with on here and regularly make excuses for? If you did, you would have your answer to who some of the TrueCons are.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM

*raises his hand silently and smiles*

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:27 PM

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM

I haven’t read everything you have said, so i don’t know… but I would hate to see us totally reject this man because of one answer.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:27 PM

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Get over yourself.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:27 PM

I haven’t read everything you have said, so i don’t know… but I would hate to see us totally reject this man because of one answer.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:27 PM

I don’t believe he will run for national office. While I blanch as strongly as anyone here at Dr. Carson’s terrible ignorance of the second amendment, he strikes me as an honest man (if incorrect on this one particular issue). There’s no room for honest men on The Hill overlooking The Potomac Cesspool. Regardless of my personal feelings, I don’t think this will be the last time he damages his chances of being a viable Republican candidate.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Anyway I have to go… Carry on! And listen to milemarker because she/he sounds very bright, IMO.

Don’t mean to give you a hard time, Cindy. I just wish you’d use some of the good standing you’ve accumulated to call out some of the bad actors here.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM

It will be the “TruCons” fault. Whoever they are.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM

.
Whoever they are? Is that some kind of joke? Do you ever read the comments here of the people you are so buddy-buddy with on here and regularly make excuses for? If you did, you would have your answer to who some of the TrueCons are.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM

.
The position of the “Overton Window” is TOTALLY in the eye of the individual beholder.

One conservative’s “tru-con” won’t meet the defining criteria of another’s.
That’s why we’re having a WAR in the Republican Party, right now.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Thanks, but all these folks are real live adults who are free to have whatever opinion they like and I enjoy reading them.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:33 PM

One conservative’s “tru-con” won’t meet the defining criteria of another’s.
That’s why we’re having a WAR in the Republican Party, right now.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM

I would beg to differ. The “war” in the Republican party, such as it is, consists only of one faction that expects the party to hew to its roots, and the other faction that believes it’s okay for a candidate to disavow himself from the Republican Party platform once that candidate is safely in office.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Semi-automatic hand guns have been around almost a century. Semi-automatic assault weapons rifles almost as long.

All of that time Americans have been able to buy them and own them.

The Second Amendment assured this right and it was not really questioned or challenged.

Now suddenly the leftist fascists think this right should be heavily conditional… After a century… Because… Well, because they think it’s best… because they know what is best for everyone. Because that’s what power hungry control freak fascists always think.

farsighted on March 4, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Thank you for making this valid point. I was wondering the same thing, like why now? Thanks for that explanation also.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 10:34 PM

But as regards the POTUS, I do believe that the SITTING President being assassinated would do FAR more harm to the country at large, than if any of the rest of us “commoners” were to be murdered.
Once a President stands down, then there becomes no more “value” to his (her?) life, than the rest of us.

My opinion.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:11 PM


Might I ask that you take a step back from that statement and consider something?

The Constitution embodies the succession process for the Presidency for some very practical reasons.

The framers of the Constitution had the multiple wars based on succession to the crown that ravaged England over hundreds of years. Succession problems had caused significant problems over two thousand years of western civilization. They established a codified succession process to take the root problem of the transfer of power out of the equation.

Our founders were intent on making the person who was President less important than the office of the Presidency. Over 230 years of our history have proven the effectiveness their efforts.

I do not wish any President to be assasinated. Our system has shown multiple times, however, that the person serving as President is not irreplaceable.

As a parting thought, please note that Democrats are those who have continually proposed WHO is President is most important (i.e. Clinton, the SCOAMF) regarding WHETHER the President should be constrained by the Constitution.

PolAgnostic on March 4, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Now suddenly the leftist fascists think this right should be heavily conditional… After a century… Because… Well, because they think it’s best… because they know what is best for everyone. Because that’s what power hungry control freak fascists always think.

farsighted on March 4, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Thank you for making this valid point. I was wondering the same thing, like why now? Thanks for that explanation also.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 10:34 PM

McDonald’s has been around since the early 1940′s. The modern concept of “fast food?” Even longer than that if you count chains like White Castle. IN the 1970′s, the Center for Science in the Public Interest was campaigning FOR trans-fat as an alternative to lard.

Sometimes it’s not about what’s right or wrong. In fact, nowadays, it’s usually NOT about what’s right or wrong. It’s about what’s fashionable.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:36 PM

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM

.
I don’t look for perfection in my political candidates.I’m a anti-hunting conservatarian. Not many who think ‘exactly’ like me.
I will-and DO- criticize whom ever I choose.
3. You remind me of a Paulbot…or a Palinista.
At least Sarah Palin is conservative. Carson’s warped view of the second amendment indicates that while he may be conservative in some areas…he’s unacceptable in others.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2013 at 10:23 PM

.
I thought milemarker‘s 9:14 PM comment was well said.

But criticize to your hearts content.

But right now, I’m feeling like a shark sandwich. I’ll be back.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:37 PM

Cindy. I just wish you’d use some of the good standing you’ve accumulated to call out some of the bad actors here.

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM


How obtuse do you have to be to not realize she already had?

Get over yourself.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:27 PM


Narcissism … it’s not just a problem for the SCOAMF.

PolAgnostic on March 4, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Perhaps the good Dr didn’t mean what he said.

Anyhoo, he’s obviously not the Neo!

Scrumpy on March 4, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Hey Scrumpy! The following was posted earlier:

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

Haven’t had time to see if he’s clarified his statement or not.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Politicians are just to stupid to begin with. It never occurs to them that maybe the existing laws aren’t being enforced so they just punish the people who are already abiding by the laws in the first place. What a world we live in!

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Says the guy prancing back and forth spewing garbage about how ‘Trucons’ are demanding “a perfect candidate”.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Yeah, how could I think that, it’s not like people are bashing great candidates like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio (and non-candidates like Ben Carson), all who would be fantastic Presidents, for incredibly minor peccadilloes.

Oh, wait, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:43 PM

All of them get bashed. Why are your guys special?

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:43 PM

One conservative’s “tru-con” won’t meet the defining criteria of another’s.
That’s why we’re having a WAR in the Republican Party, right now.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Anybody who didn’t vote for Romney because he “wasn’t conservative enough” or people who went so far as to vote for Obama (like Honda), those are the TruCons. People who are so ridiculous myopic that they can’t see the forest for the trees and don’t realize that politics is, has and always will be a game of pragmatics.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:44 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

Hopefully all the providers will be compelled to add The Blaze to their lineup soon or be faced with losing a lot of customers to Dish.

As long as Beck continues to pursue the liberty angle and try to unite the 51% of the nation on the freedom end of the political spectrum I’ll keep watching. If he keeps it up I wouldn’t be surprised if it overtakes FNC in the next few years, hopefully before Nov 2014.

FloatingRock on March 4, 2013 at 10:44 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

The first sentence I disagree with…the more firepower in the hands of Citizens at large, the better. Now, personally, I have no real desire to own an M-60 or other such high-powered weapon. I get bored really fast shooting weapons (I was in the Army Field Artillery…heard more than enough things go BOOM and expended enough ordnance to last me a very long time…LOL).

But having said that, I feel like I’m not being a very good Citizen by not owning one and depending on someone else to acquire and maintain such weapons that could level the playing field if there’s an invasion.

NBC is a different matter. How can you target enemy units on our soil with such weapons and not endanger fellow Americans, not to mention yourself with the bio stuff? That simply would not make any sense.

Makes me wonder, though…would NORTHCOM use NBC if there were an invasion on American soil? Would NATO really have used nuclear against the Warsaw Pact in German?

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Yeah, how could I think that, it’s not like people are bashing great candidates like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio (and non-candidates like Ben Carson), all who would be fantastic Presidents, for incredibly minor peccadilloes.

Oh, wait, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:43 PM

You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on what constitutes “incredibly minor peccadilloes.” A stated intent to relax laws that we are already not enforcing (such as immigration laws, among others) and a stated intent to violate the constitution (by restricting the natural right to self defense codified into the 2nd amendment, whether out of ignorance or malice), are not issues I consider “minor peccadilloes” by any stretch. I consider those pretty major existential issues when it comes to the future of our republic, let alone if our republic even has a future to look forward to.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM

All of them get bashed. Why are your guys special?

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:43 PM

A. Who are “my guys”? In the 2012 election I supported Perry, Cain and Newt. I don’t have a “guy.”

B. Everybody gets bashed, yet it’s only a national emergency when it happens to Sarah Palin. When that happens, we need inquisitions, congressional investigations into Palinization, tribunals to cast out and shun nonbelievers. When every other candidate gets viciously bashed by people who claim to be conservatives/Republicans, it’s just “vetting.”

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM

I do not wish any President to be assasinated. Our system has shown multiple times, however, that the person serving as President is not irreplaceable.

As a parting thought, please note that Democrats are those who have continually proposed WHO is President is most important (i.e. Clinton, the SCOAMF) regarding WHETHER the President should be constrained by the Constitution.

PolAgnostic on March 4, 2013 at 10:35 PM

.
I don’t believe Ronaldus Magnus would have been “replaceable”.

Also, if something were to happen to Barack Obama today, it would be the final push “over the edge” of Civil War.

I believe our Secret Service personnel should be allowed to used full-auto firearms when guarding the President, and that civilians should have a “State regulated” access to full-auto firearms.

But I don’t claim to have the best, most perfect opinion on the matter.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Yeah, how could I think that, it’s not like people are bashing great candidates like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio (and non-candidates like Ben Carson), all who would be fantastic Presidents, for incredibly minor peccadilloes.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:43 PM

I like Rand Paul and despise Rubio, so maybe it really has more to do with your dislike of conservatives than anything else.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:44 PM

You are right, it is a game of pragmatism and we have a long way to go before 2016. We are going to get a lot of information between now and then but that doesn’t mean that it any one thing will be a deal breaker when the time comes. Don’t forget that there were plenty of high profile establishment Republicans who voted for Obama because they couldn’t stand the thought of Gov. Palin in the VP spot and they made sure everyone knew how they felt.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Here’s the rest of the lightning round for those interested in seeing
more than a snippet of the man. And why not try to read some of the books this man has written rather than be led by sheep by a headline?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBkgYITkEQY

milemarker2020 on March 4, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Thank you, I’ll do that. I ordered two of his books, but haven’t had a chance of reading them yet. He has a chance to explain why he said what he did. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he thot Christie and others should be invited to CPAC, thinking maybe he meant Republican Party instead. We’ll see.

I will say, with the hot issue of Gun Control/2nd Amendment today, he should have been more careful if he didn’t mean what he said.

Everyone is very Anti-Gun Control. I hope he comes out soon to explain this.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 10:49 PM

You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on what constitutes “incredibly minor peccadilloes.” A stated intent to relax laws that we are already not enforcing (such as immigration laws, among others) and a stated intent to violate the constitution (by restricting the natural right to self defense codified into the 2nd amendment, whether out of ignorance or malice), are not issues I consider “minor peccadilloes” by any stretch. I consider those pretty major existential issues when it comes to the future of our republic, let alone if our republic even has a future to look forward to.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM

We already “restrict the natural right to self defense codified into the 2nd amendment,” or else I’d own a Tavor 21 with an M203 mount and going to the range would be a LOT more fun than it is now.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:50 PM

davidk on March 4, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Bookmarked, thanks.

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 10:51 PM

We already “restrict the natural right to self defense codified into the 2nd amendment,” or else I’d own a Tavor 21 with an M203 mount and going to the range would be a LOT more fun than it is now.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:50 PM

The intent of the second amendment, as-written, was that the people should have access to the same weaponry that the state did. The muskets that the continental army used against the British were state-of-the-art at the time and the British had attempted to ban their import and use by the colonists in one of the “intolerable acts” they probably didn’t teach you about in high school.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:52 PM

One conservative’s “tru-con” won’t meet the defining criteria of another’s.
That’s why we’re having a WAR in the Republican Party, right now.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM

.
Anybody who didn’t vote for Romney because he “wasn’t conservative enough” or people who went so far as to vote for Obama (like Honda), those are the TruCons. People who are so ridiculous myopic that they can’t see the forest for the trees and don’t realize that politics is, has and always will be a game of pragmatics.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:44 PM

.
Damn . . . . . . . . . . . that makes me a non-tru-con.

Son of a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on March 4, 2013 at 10:53 PM

Yeah, I don’t need anymore people running for office that I don’t deserve. I’m not sure that we will recover from the one that’s too good for us now.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 9:22 PM

I’m glad I was only eating a piece of cake and not drinking my coffee:-)

bluefox on March 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Anybody who didn’t vote for Romney because he “wasn’t conservative enough”

He wasn’t conservative at all.

People who are so ridiculous myopic that they can’t see the forest for the trees and don’t realize that politics is, has and always will be a game of pragmatics.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Sooner or later constant compromises make an Arlen Specter, or a Charlie Crist of you. Obama has increased the debt more than anyone else has, and George Bush is the runner up to that dubious prize.

At some point you are either going to support doing something real, or stop pretending you even give a damn.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM

You aren’t being very pragmatic. You mentioned Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. There are people on this site who already say they won’t vote for either. I could vote for either with no problem and could give a rational reason why I like both men without insulting those who disagree with me. Lumping them together under some supposed pejorative group name is lazy and doesn’t add anything to the conversation.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM

You are right, it is a game of pragmatism and we have a long way to go before 2016. We are going to get a lot of information between now and then but that doesn’t mean that it any one thing will be a deal breaker when the time comes. Don’t forget that there were plenty of high profile establishment Republicans who voted for Obama because they couldn’t stand the thought of Gov. Palin in the VP spot and they made sure everyone knew how they felt.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Yeah, it’s a long way away, but I can recognize patterns when I see them. Everyone who has anything controversial will be destroyed by a combination of the MSM and our own party Mandarins/TruCons, people with Palin-esque potential will be savaged by the Palin supporters from 08 for reasons of revenge and pettiness, and we’ll end up with the least threatening guy who can spend the most money in the primaries, who will then be trounced by Clinton.

Then we get the lectures, “Oh, if only we nominated a real conservative!”

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM

You aren’t being very pragmatic. You mentioned Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. There are people on this site who already say they won’t vote for either. I could vote for either with no problem and could give a rational reason why I like both men without insulting those who disagree with me. Lumping them together under some supposed pejorative group name is lazy and doesn’t add anything to the conversation.

Cindy Munford on March 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM

What conversation is there to be had with people who are already discarding candidates 2 and a half years in advance?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Yeah, it’s a long way away, but I can recognize patterns when I see them. Everyone who has anything controversial will be destroyed by a combination of the MSM and our own party Mandarins/TruCons, people with Palin-esque potential will be savaged by the Palin supporters from 08 for reasons of revenge and pettiness, and we’ll end up with the least threatening guy who can spend the most money in the primaries, who will then be trounced by Clinton.

Then we get the lectures, “Oh, if only we nominated a real conservative!”

Good Solid B-Plus on March 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM

We haven’t tried it since 1980.

gryphon202 on March 4, 2013 at 10:56 PM

NBC is a different matter. How can you target enemy units on our soil with such weapons and not endanger fellow Americans, not to mention yourself with the bio stuff? That simply would not make any sense.

I agree, but it does mean that you have to make a value judgment on what weapons make sense and which ones don’t.

Makes me wonder, though…would NORTHCOM use NBC if there were an invasion on American soil? Would NATO really have used nuclear against the Warsaw Pact in German?

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM

A lot depends on how desperate the situation was and the actual type of weapon. Tactical nuclear weapons at sea and small yield artillery shells would be more likely than a full out exchange IMO.

sharrukin on March 4, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7