Posted on 05/27/2014 6:59:23 PM PDT by Rusty0604
“But the real reason that they put it [2nd Amendment] there is recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves,” said Carson. “I would never allow the Second Amendment to be jeopardized.”
“I do believe that it is necessary for people to begin to have rational discussions about things – what kinds of weapons,” said Carson. “You know, I don’t think tanks, for instance, would be a very good thing to be keeping in your garage. But you certainly should have access to any kind of weapon that you want for recreational purposes or to protect yourself. There really shouldn’t be a lot of restrictions on that.”
He continued, “You do need to have a discussion about how we deal with situations where there is a tremendous amount of crime and easy access to the kinds of weapons that can create a lot of damage quickly. But that needs to be done in context of always preserving Second Amendment rights.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
If I don't have the right to own a tank, I can hardly delegate that power to the government to exercise on my behalf.
You should be able to own a tank legally. Carson’s RINOism is showing.
A rebellious Federal state requires a militia to oganize appropriate measures. It is not like we are making a living from owning firearms the way they do or the way a mafia would seek it.
Carson is clearly not presidential material.
“recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves,”
Time?
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?
Congress have no right to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American....
The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, delegate to the Continental Congress in the Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
I think he’s an Independent, but I understand what you mean.
He could be Surgeon General or Sec. of Education (unless we can manage to get rid of the Dept. of Education).
From where I’m looking at it the rails are wobbling now.
“The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower”-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.”
He also seems a little too nice for elected office. Right now, what we need is a pack of honey badgers, imo. I’m tired of this ‘let’s first make sure we don’t offend’ schtick.
Nuclear bombs?
Since the Federal Government has already declared war on the citizens of the United States, how will you know when it goes off the rails?
Hey Doc...we're living in that time.
Carson & McRaven for President and VP.
Palin/Perrino 2016. I can dream!
Is he trying to undo his earlier statements on guns? About some places shouldn’t have guns?
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.