Posted on 11/11/2011 9:49:00 PM PST by TitansAFC
When I saw Herman Cain’s interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday afternoon, this immediately jumped out at me:
.........
(Excerpt) Read more at outsidethebeltway.com ...
Thanks. I got here late. I am still working on the thread. So far it looks like another mess.
Google Search: Herman Cain Gun Control
The problem is that whatever the Cain supporters "get", it would be nice to actually see some detailed discussion by Herman Cain that supports what they believe he thinks on the subject. He might be great on it, but as the GOA said, they don't see it in his record or his statements yet, so they need him to clarify it.
This from someone who refuses to answer the simplest questions about their 2nd Amendment beliefs. You sir are a dishonest disruptor, calling you a troll would be giving you too much credit.
His comment was germaine to the topic of the thread, yours was not. You didn't like what he said about Cain, and rather than offer evidence to refute his claim (which apparently should be EASY), you instead posted a list of off-topic items about another candidate.
Nobody is going to answer any of your list items here -- because it would sidetrack a thread. That's why we have rules about sticking on-topic. If you want to discuss those things, make a thread, and then people can discuss them without violating the rules about hijacking threads.
I'm not a Perry supporter, but I could care less who you think I support, because your ignorance in that regard is of no concern of mine.
decide to mislead concerning a candidate that is more conservative than Perry
your OPINION is duly noted, although you could actually show evidence of that by discussing the topic of the thread. Especially if you could provide evidence for your claim about "misleading", like a link to a later Cain discussion where he clarifies what he said.
THis is also an off-topic comment. The thread is about Cain’s position on Gun Control. If you let the Cain folks take you into off-topic discussions, you just give credence to their thread hijacking.
The best way to stop people from filibustering discussion of their candidates is to simply IGNORE their off-topic charges, and explain why. Make them go do their own threads. Don’t let them make every thread into an attack thread against your candidate.
"HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIULIANI: Yes..."
Attacks on Cain usually insist on 3 basic attacks.
1) Leftist Media twisting of facts.
2) Old material like this thread post on an article in June, 6 months ago.
3)...sorry can’t remember this one, oopsi
“Cain is so unqualified to be President”
Can you name 3 reasons why Perry should be President?
Because I doubt if he could.
"Unless there is an immediate and compelling government interest related to other rights"
Our ability to exercise our inalienable rights are always tempered by interference with competing rights of others. Government has the responsibility to pass laws which adjudicate between those competing interests. Our rights are never absolute.
We have the right to freedom of speech, but not to yell "fire", not to brazenly lie without consequences. We have freedom of association, but not if our association is clearly working to undermine other people's rights. Even our right to life can be forfeit if we take the life of others.
what YOU are suggesting is that no one should able to control these guys getting weapons
No, what I was suggesting is exactly what I said, with the exception I clearly stated. What I SUGGESTED was a princpiple that would imply that a state can't just regulate concealed carry based on their own whim. The 2nd amendment applies to the states just as it applies to the federal government.
Concealed carry laws are typical of government nanny-statism. I could carry a concealed gun and I would NEVER threaten the rights of any other person, I would not commit any crime, I would be able to defend myself and others, and would be ready if the unthinkable happened and some other country sent terrorists into a mall to attack our country and it's people.
So what is the compelling immediate threat that government is solving by banning me from carrying a concealed weapon? Why should my right to carry a weapon end at a state border? Why is that a "state" issue? Is my freedom of speech only for federal law? Is my freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, or my right to a trial by jury, subject to the whims of the state?
I believe my position is firmly within the conservative mainstream. I hope this explains my position for you.
I admit I just said that to be funny, but then like 2 comments later someone actually came to say he HAD clarified his statement later.
And two others came in to excuse him for making a stupid comment by suggesting he was naive or inexperienced, but he was much better now 5 months later.
“Cain has no governing or legislative record...”
Perry does. But he can’t remember more than two things that he’s ever done.
I don't know what they are to believe, but they are supposed to DISCUSS it in the dozen or more threads where that was the topic of the article, and NOT hijack a totally unrelated thread about Herman Cain's position on the 2nd amendment and Gun Control.
I wasn’t trying to derail the thread. I was just looking at the thread and it made me think of what I posted. I thought it had some relation.
If we closed every thread with off-topic posts, there wouldn’t be many threads left.
Another off-topic comment.
You are getting sucked into an off-topic conversation.
MY SENILITY PRAYER:
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones that I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Now that I’m ‘older (but refuse to grow up), here’s what I’ve discovered:
ONE - I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it.
TWO - I finally got my head together; now my body is falling apart.
THREE -Funny, I don’t remember being absent minded...
FOUR -All reports are in; life is now officially unfair.
FIVE -If all is not lost, where is it?
SIX -It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.
SEVEN -Some days you’re the dog; some days you’re the hydrant.
EIGHT - I wish the buck stopped here; I sure could use a few...
NINE -It’s hard to make a comeback when you haven’t been anywhere.
TEN -Only time the world beats a path to your door is when you’re in the bathroom.
ELEVEN -If God wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees.
TWELVE -When I’m finally holding all the cards, why does everyone decide to play chess?
THIRTEEN -It’s not hard to meet expenses... they’re everywhere.
FOURTEEN -The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
FIFTEEN -These days, I spend a lot of time thinking about the hereafter...
I go somewhere to get something and then wonder what I’m here after.
His post was relevant to the discussion. You may discuss or ignore it.
It makes no sense to expect me to say whether I think they are "wrong" for holding a position I don't believe they hold. Although really the problem is that you haven't explained why you think Cain's position is what you state. I asked you to give a link justifying your belief, and you didn't, but I'm not going to post another three times complaining about you not answering MY question. You are free to do whatever you want, as am I.
I had already posted my opinion on what the limits should be for laws regarding guns. It's back in Post 75, which I posted before I read any of your repeated posts asking your question. I'll let YOU decide whether my view matches what you think Scalia et. al have ruled. If it doesn't, I guess I disagree with them. That does happen sometimes.
I keep doing google searches trying to find newer quotes from Cain that would tell me in more detail what he believes. I haven't found it.
I posted a link to a GOA article from September 30th (40 days ago), where THEY complain that they don't have the answers either. They really care about the gun issues, and they have a lot of resources to devote to finding out what Cain believes, and THEY said he hadn't made his position very clear at all.
Do states have the legal authority to enact reasonable restrictions on firearms?
Yes. "reasonable restrictions" must be tightly defined to only cover "immediate and compelling government interest related to other rights", as I said in my other post.
So I do NOT believe states can restrict all use of guns EXCEPT for personal protection within the home. I don't believe states should have the right to restrict law-abiding citizens with no prior record from carrying guns, either concealed or openly. I don't think my right to carry a gun should end at the state border.
My liberty right, further protected by the 2nd amendment's statement that the government shall not infringe on my right to keep and BEAR arms, should preclude states from restricting my possession and transportation of a firearm ANYWHERE in the United States. Because if Maryland can forbit me from driving into their state with a weapon, they have violated my right to bear arms anywhere, since I can't just make my gun dissappear at the border.
Now, I'll ask you a question. Does Cain believe that states should be allowed to prohibit concealed carry of weapons for law-abiding citizens of other states who have no priors nor any other item in their background that would suggest they are a clear threat to the property or libery rights of the citizens of the states?
When giving your answer, since you are NOT Herman Cain, please provide a link to the article or speech where you get the information about what Cain's position is, thank you.
If you don't want to, don't. I'm not paying you to work for me.
I hope that this answers your question to your satisfaction. If not, ask another one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.