Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Jeff Head

You realize, of course, that if Cain is elected, then you can forget about National Reciprocity.

You can also forget about owning a gun in any state in the future which has a large number of Democrat voters because Cain will not interfere.

Lastly, the United States Supreme Court is just 1 judge away from determining that individual citizens are not allowed to own, possess, or carry guns.


47 posted on 09/28/2011 9:35:07 AM PDT by CGalen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: CGalen
Given his own stance, I believe he would favor Reciprocity and believe the incoming House and Senate would make it happen.

We already have the second part of your statements going on around the country in those states. Look at Illinois and others. But even there they have not been wholly successful.

I believe Cain would appoint judges who would be strict constitutionalists according to original intent, and if he had appointments to make they would favor making the current court even more conservative and more inclined to follow the constitution and not make new laws or allow "current thinking", or other nations to sway them.

Having said all of that, I believe Cain needs to clarify his stance on the 2nd amendment and gun control and have asked him to do so. Many others should ask him to do the same.

48 posted on 09/28/2011 9:57:41 AM PDT by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: CGalen

CGalen is going to every Cain thread and posting this lie.

Herman Cain is 200% pro 2nd Amendment. What he said in the Blitzer interview (mentioned on that link you posted) was taken to mean that he believed states could overrule the 2nd amendment. He does not believe that and he explains here:

(at the 10:17 mark) I strongly support the 2nd amendment. I said that some things should be left up to the states, for example, if the states want to require background checks, let the states decide that. But I did not in ANY WAY mean states had a right to restrict access to owning firearms. So that was the misunderstanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOUF1Hug0JI


49 posted on 09/28/2011 10:19:06 AM PDT by justsaynomore (Herman Cain 2012 - http://www.arealleader.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: CGalen

You wrote:

“You realize, of course, that if Cain is elected, then you can forget about National Reciprocity. You can also forget about owning a gun in any state in the future which has a large number of Democrat voters because Cain will not interfere.”

In contrast stand the facts of what he actually said, in context:

BLITZER: All right. Let’s talk about gun control. Do you support any gun control?

CAIN: I support the Second Amendment.

BLITZER: So you don’t — so what’s the answer on gun control?

CAIN: The answer on gun control is I support strong — strongly support the Second Amendment. I don’t support, you know, onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

BLITZER: Should states or local governments be allowed to control the gun situation? Or should...

CAIN: Yes.

BLITZER: The answer is yes?

CAIN: The answer is yes. That should be a state’s decision.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/07/interview_with_presidential_candidate_herman_cain_110131.html


50 posted on 09/29/2011 10:52:37 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Author of BullionBible.com - Makes You a Precious Metal Expert, Guaranteed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson