Skip to comments.Open letter to Herman Cain on the right to keep and bear arms
Posted on 06/13/2011 8:44:36 AM PDT by Jack Black
Dear Mr. Cain,
Many conservatives have been touting your candidacy for president as cause for great hope that they will be able to support someone who understands limited government and freedom. Thats why your answers to Wolf Blitzers questions on gun control (see sidebar video player at 3:04 mark) have raised concerns among right to keep and bear arms advocates.
Specifically, you affirmed your belief that states or local government [should] be allowed to control guns. That's the same "home rule" position advocated by the Brady Campaign.
Some in the conservative camp are trying to find excuses for you, telling us not to panic and that you slipped up a bit. Some, hopeful for your candidacy, urge us to cut you some slack and give you an opportunity to clarify what you meant.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Don’t worry. The same Cainites who apologized and excused his enthusiastic support for TARP will find ways to excuse this.
The more I find out... the less I like.
So long, Mr. Cain.
This joker has just HUNG himself. Now watch as RINOs begin to support him. And will the “you don’t like him cause he’s black” card be played soon?
Not good news.
Have to disagree. The original states came into the union with the police power, and the newer states obtained these rights as they came into the union. Texas was a truly sovereign power when it agree to annexation. Libertarian notions of individual rights do not here apply. The exception would be that no state ought to be able to deprive an owner of his weapon without due process. No state can invest a policeman with the same authority that is enjoyed by a French or a German policeman.
Selective editing is the same thing as outright lying. Funny that we are starting to to see supposed "Conservatives" engaging in the same slime bag tactics of the Establishment Democrat Media machine.
Cain: "I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and oppose any onerous legislative attempts to restrict those rights".
Nice selective editing. How about the Paulbots authors try posting what he said right BEFORE that statement?
Cain: “I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and oppose any onerous legislative attempts to restrict those rights
I’ll wait for his response. His statement raises concerns, but he can answer that the Second Amendment permits only very limited controls, and that these should not be the jurisdiction of the Federal government.
Which would be to advocate ending the machine-gun “ban” and all federal background checks, not to mention federal excise taxes on guns and ammo.
Cain is one of the most conservative candidates in the field but he makes mistakes that a professional politician wouldn't make. He slips up then goes back, studies and corrects himself. If you want a professional politician who can slither out of any question go right ahead and vote for one. But don't lie about the guy you don't like.
Only one person wins in the conservative circular firing squad, and he can't keep straight the number of states in the U.S. and the number of countries in the Organization of Islamic States.
I really WANTED Cain to do well. But the more I hear him speak, and pop off with blustery answers; many of which are cross-wise of what most Conservatives believe, I have been mildly repulsed. In fact, in some respects he strikes me as a “sexual intellectual”.....an Effin’ Know-it-all! Too bad. I guess Sarah sets the bar so high.......
If inalienable rights aren’t portable they aren’t inalienable.
What rights don't apply? Freedom of speech and the press? Freedom of religion?
What the heck are you talking about?
We fought a civil war over the notion of states rights overriding individual rights. That's why we have the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.
If he did, then I stand by my abandonment of him as a presidential candidate.
Barack Obama had also claimed to be a ‘strong supporter’ of the 2nd Amendment.
And what do you think Mr. Cain means when he says ‘onerous’? It has been my experience that one man's 'onerous law' is another man's ‘common sense legislation’.
Does he even have an Afghanistan/Iraq policy? Last I heard he was going to let us all know once he's president and had "access to all the intelligence and information".
It's cool he's in the race, but Cain is not ready for prime time. He needs to go win a few local/state elections - maybe win a congressional seat a couple times and come back in 2016 with some experience of actually getting elected to something under his belt. The reality is, it takes more than being right to get elected. Cain's a good guy, but simply doesn't have the political skills necessary to be a serious contender this time around.
Cain supports states-rights. That is how this country was formed. Cain is absolutely correct and he does not want the right to own guns infringed by ANYONE. I personally am glad that my state (NJ) does background checks before issuing a gun permit because I truly only want law abiding CITIZENS to have guns. I do wish my state would allow carry and concealed though for all registered owners.
I've got to agree with you 100%.
When Cain outlines the big picture, I'm very impressed by what he says. But when he starts to go into details, I'm not so impressed. It seems like he hasn't given the details near enough thought.
As an example, last week O'Reilly asked Cain how he would stop Iran from getting the bomb. All Cain could say is that we needed more domestic oil drilling to cut down the cash flow to Iran.
And that disappointed me. Because up to then my dream ticket was Palin/Cain. Now I'm starting to wonder.