Replies

YOU said states have no right to have any say over weapons. I asked you a perfectly reasonable question that blew YOUR statement to to hell, and you tell me I am not sticking to the topic.

You seem to have gotten lost. That statement does not in reflect the comment you are linking to.

Also, I NEVER said anywhere that states have NO right to have any say over weapons.

You have actually crossed two subthreads, so I'll untangle them.

First, this subthread. Your FIRST post to this thread was Post 34, which didn't discuss the topic.
Followed by:
Post 38, also not about the topic, then
Post 49, which was your first response to me, again off-topic and also interjecting yourself into a subthread. Which is OK, but that often gets people confused.

Anyway, at the time you responded to me in post 49, you had made 3 comments in the thread, and ALL were off-topic. I read your response to me in post 49, and responded in Post 114 - Note that I was obviously running a bit behind, but when I typed the response, you had not yet discussed the topic, and I said so.

In post 114, I provided a link to a GOA article from September 30th, to answer your complaint that the original article was too old. That article didn't say anything about state gun restrictions, it was simply saying they didn't know Cain's position on gun issues, and wanted him to answer their survey.

You responded to post 114 with Post 127, the post I'm responding to here, where you talk about asking me questions that blew me away. But note that was NOT the subject of this subthread you were responding to, and of course I hadn't "answered" your question (which you asked in post 95) at the time I was responding to your post 49. I hadn't GOTTEN to your question yet. And obviously my post 114 was not INTENDEND to be a response to your post 145, because it was clearly marked in "reply" to 49.

This is why John Robinson has gone through the trouble of providing the "To xxx" link for EVERY post, so people know what it is in response to. If you had taken the time to look at that, you would have known this was a response to your comment 49, and NOT a response to your comment 95.

OK, so what about your question that you are so proud of? Like I said, that was another thread, but let's drag that in here.

It starts with my Post 75, in which I made the following statement:

CharlesWayneCT: Unless there is an immediate and compelling government interest related to other rights, people should be allowed to have guns for whatever legal reason they want, not just a handgun kept in their house to protect themselves at home.

You responded to that in Post 95, with this question, which I quote in full:

MestaMachine: So you would be just fine with gerald loughner serving some time in an institution, being finally declared ‘sane’ and set free to buy a new toy? How about the Fort Hood shooter? Any reason he couldn’t serve his time and be allowed to have a gun? And before you day those are extreme cases, what YOU are suggesting is that no one should able to control these guys getting weapons...and they are not the only ones. Who maintains the public safety?

Note that your questions are based on a faulty reading of my post, which clearly says some laws would be acceptable, and in fact defines the criteria.

Your question, far from "blew YOUR statement to hell", simply revealed a misunderstanding on your part about the words I wrote.

Which is fine, that's why you SHOULD ask questions, not to win fake debating points that nobody cares about, but to actually seek understanding.

With that in mind, I DID respond to your questions, politely and completely, in Post 150, where I note that your cases would fall under my exceptions clause "Unless there is an immediate and compelling government interest related to other rights"

I further expound in that post about how laws do infringe somewhat on our rights, in order to protect other rights, and then I deal specifically with the issue of concealed carry, which was supposedly the topic Cain was talking about, and explain why I think it's wrong to simply let states decide where I can carry a concealed weapon.

I will note that, at the time I write THIS response, I have received NO replies to that response.

I apologize for this being so long, but your accusation simply had to be answered, and the only way to really do so was to fully lay out what exactly happened, and to that your premise was faulty.

To summarize:
Seems to me you have answered nothing. You made an absolute statement and you cannot back it up.
Your answer to your question is in post 150, not in post 114 which was a reply to your post 49 which was the 3rd off-topic post you made to this thread.

I apologize for post 114 saying you were off-topic. I explain why I did so, but since you HAD made an on-topic post by the time my response was posted, it was incorrect, and so I apologize. But you were wrong to expect that a response to post 49 would contain a response to your post 95 simply because it came AFTER your post. That's why we have the "To xxx" links.