Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Open letter to Herman Cain on the right to keep and bear arms
Examiner ^ | June 10, 2011 | David Codrea

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. That’s why your answers to Wolf Blitzer’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; 2ndammendment; blog; blognotnews; cain; caincult; obama; palin; popupfactory; rightofreturn; romenybot; spyware; trashtalk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 06/13/2011 8:44:45 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Don’t worry. The same Cainites who apologized and excused his enthusiastic support for TARP will find ways to excuse this.


2 posted on 06/13/2011 8:47:53 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

The more I find out... the less I like.


3 posted on 06/13/2011 8:51:43 AM PDT by Bubba (Kriss... firearm of choice for close encounters of the worst kind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Oh well.

So long, Mr. Cain.


4 posted on 06/13/2011 8:56:09 AM PDT by WayneS ("I hope you know this will go down on your PERMANENT record...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

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?


5 posted on 06/13/2011 8:58:22 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Not good news.


6 posted on 06/13/2011 8:59:47 AM PDT by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

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.


7 posted on 06/13/2011 9:00:03 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black; Captain Kirk; Bubba
Nice selective editing. How about you Paulbots try posting what he said right BEFORE that statement?

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".

8 posted on 06/13/2011 9:00:03 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving politicians more tax money is like giving addicts free drugs to cure their addiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax; WayneS

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


9 posted on 06/13/2011 9:01:17 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving politicians more tax money is like giving addicts free drugs to cure their addiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

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.


10 posted on 06/13/2011 9:03:07 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (End the "Fiscal Fiasco" in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
The Examiner is one of the worst blogs on the web. It's full of adware, cookies, spyware, popups, oh - and really crappy content like this.

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.

11 posted on 06/13/2011 9:08:38 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk; justsaynomore
I see the ankle-biters from the Paul campaign are out today ...

Herman Cain: I believe in the Second Amendment. Like my good friend Joe the Plumber, I have six guns; and that's not enough.

12 posted on 06/13/2011 9:10:15 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

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.......


13 posted on 06/13/2011 9:10:21 AM PDT by Tucker39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

If inalienable rights aren’t portable they aren’t inalienable.


14 posted on 06/13/2011 9:10:54 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
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.

What rights don't apply? Freedom of speech and the press? Freedom of religion?

What the heck are you talking about?

15 posted on 06/13/2011 9:12:37 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Libertarian notions of individual rights do not here apply.

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.

16 posted on 06/13/2011 9:17:17 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
It's nice that he said that, but did he or did he not say that he thinks states should be able to pass gun control laws?

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’.

17 posted on 06/13/2011 9:23:01 AM PDT by WayneS ("I hope you know this will go down on your PERMANENT record...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39
I really WANTED Cain to do well. But the more I hear him speak, and pop off with blustery answers;

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.

18 posted on 06/13/2011 9:23:01 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

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.


19 posted on 06/13/2011 9:29:06 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
Cain's a good guy, but simply doesn't have the political skills necessary to be a serious contender this time around.

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.

20 posted on 06/13/2011 9:37:45 AM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I carrying this lantern? you ask. I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Oh, by the way, Cain said he “owns six guns and that ain’t enough.” Dimowits are one issue voters (abortion) and I didn’t think I’d see such hatred here for a good man like Cain.


21 posted on 06/13/2011 9:38:26 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist; Jack Black
and I didn’t think I’d see such hatred here for a good man like Cain.

That's the way I feel. I didn't think I'd ever see anyone on this forum championing back round checks and gun registration.

22 posted on 06/13/2011 9:43:28 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Actually, he’s right in a way. This is because there is more to guns than just personal ownership.

Right now, States are asserting that guns and ammunition *manufactured* in their State, and solely for use in their State, are outside of federal jurisdiction.

“States or local government [should] be allowed to control guns.”

At the State level, for example, there should be regulations that guns and ammo must be made to some quality standard, so they don’t blow up and injure the user. There are also regulations that guns cannot be sold to felony criminals and the insane. Likewise, States and municipalities can determine where shooting is permitted or prohibited for safety reasons. Owning is not the same as using.

There are also rules for the safe storage of ammo, and its proximity to compressed gases, solvents and fuels, paints, etc. States might even set up proper disposal rules for discarded guns and ammo.

Perhaps his error is in calling it “gun control”, but the confusion would exist just the same with other expressions.


23 posted on 06/13/2011 9:43:28 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

If you ask enough people, you’ll just about always find someone that hates someone else.


24 posted on 06/13/2011 9:50:39 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I didn’t think I’d ever see anyone on this forum championing back round checks and gun registration.


Then how do you stop illegals and criminals from buying a gun?


25 posted on 06/13/2011 9:50:48 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
I must have missed the part in the 2nd Amendment where it says "except for" after "shall not be infringed".

Back round checks do not verify Citizenship status so that part of your argument is moot.

26 posted on 06/13/2011 9:59:49 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
We fought a war to keep the states from seceding from the Union. You evidently subscribe th a notion that even Lincoln opposed, which is that the states committed suicide, that they actually left the union and thereby lost all sovereign rights. No, the agreed upon theory was that the states were held captive by rebel governments. The 13th amendment limited itself to the abolition of ONE right, the right to establish slavery or anything similar. The 14th Amendment brought all citizens the protection of the Federal Government and equity inside the states. The 15th amendment limited the states' power to decide who can vote.
27 posted on 06/13/2011 10:08:05 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Does anyone have a detailed plan for stopping Iran from getting the bomb? If so they are keeping really quiet about it.


28 posted on 06/13/2011 10:10:25 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
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.

I watched O'Reilly-Cain on Fox and winced when Iran came up: Cain stammered and BOR pressed hard for elaboration...Cain was shooting from the hip, as if he had never pondered the question, reflexively confabulating an answer...he got stuck.

Does this gaffe hurt Cain? ---Hell yes, it does.

Maybe he needs more thorough preparation in a studio with the Kleig lights on, etc., and someone like Marine Drill Instructor R. Lee Emery to fire tough questions...

29 posted on 06/13/2011 10:19:27 AM PDT by Rudder (The Main Stream Media is Our Enemy---get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Then how do you stop illegals and criminals from buying a gun?

Why should you want to? Nothing in the 2nd amend about citizens only. Send 'em back - sure, but whether ot not they can buy a gun should be irrelevant

30 posted on 06/13/2011 10:21:16 AM PDT by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
TARP
the right of return
Iran vs. energy independence
appointing a Muslim to his cabinet
food stamps
gun control & 2nd Amendment rights
foreign policy position.

Not ready now to hold higher office. Good radio host and good talker though.
31 posted on 06/13/2011 10:28:48 AM PDT by American Dream 246 (Open your eyes. Freedom is not a one day fight. Enemies of Freedom are legion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Herman Cain's downfall on this issue (and others) is that he actually knows what he's talking about, and takes it for granted others know also.

States clearly have the right to regulate firearms in some fashion:

We may not agree on every state regulation (I know I don't), but that doesn't mean there aren't some areas where a state does have some legitimate control.

The 2nd amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does not say: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the government shall pass no law that has anything to do with firearms.

Can a state can pass laws that regulate guns within their state that doesn't infringe on the 2nd amendment rights? If they can (even in the slightest, most insignificant way), then you've established that states can "control" guns.

The question then becomes how much control is allowed under the 2nd amendment. I happen to think we've gone way too far to the left in this country--the founders envisioned owning a gun to be as common as owning a horse; on the other hand, I don't think it's accurate to say the founders envisioned states having absolute zero say as to firearms within the state's boarders.

I there anyone here willing to say state laws against owning a bazoka or the criminally insane from owning a gun is an infringement on their 2nd amendment right to bear arms? If not, then you are admiting (publicly) that there is a state right to gun control.

Cain's position seemed pretty clear. He strongly supports the right to bear arms and doesn't believe the federal government should be regulating arms, but understands there is some ability for states to regulate arms.


www.nerds4cain.com

32 posted on 06/13/2011 10:30:15 AM PDT by Brookhaven (Herman Cain knows math, computers, pizza, money, hamburgers, banking, and Coca-Cola)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Why is that hate if we don’t agree with him? I like the guy -I just think he is ..learning on the job right now - gaffe after gaffe. Not good enough to save America. This election is way too important to test another inexperienced guy. Has nothing to do with hate.


33 posted on 06/13/2011 10:32:02 AM PDT by American Dream 246 (Open your eyes. Freedom is not a one day fight. Enemies of Freedom are legion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan; Servant of the Cross

Wow, I see the Herman Derangement Syndrome is out in full force.

I listened that interview and without a doubt the author of this article is twisting Herman Cain’s words. Mr. Cain never said or even hinted that states could override the 2nd amendment!!!

There is plenty of evidence out there of Herman Cain’s support of 2nd amendment rights that the posters on this thread are choosing to ignore.

His speech at the NRA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kplLAcpJtbw&feature=player_embedded

The Ron Paul attacks don’t surprise me, but it’s sad to see the Palin supporters using the same tactics against Cain that liberals have been using against Palin.


34 posted on 06/13/2011 10:37:57 AM PDT by justsaynomore ("I sure wouldn't have taken 16 hours to make that call - and jeopardize that mission" - Herman Cain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246
I'm not sure why you are addressing that to me as I have not stated an opinion on Cain either way. I like Cain though I very disappointed with his view on the 2nd A. He seemed to contradict himself in his support and then says States can regulate guns....I wish he would clarify.

I still haven't made up my mind yet as to who is my pick, thankfully there is still time to see how things pan out. I agree with you on the importance of this election and I really really hope that I don't have to go to the polls, again, holding my nose like I did last time.

35 posted on 06/13/2011 10:39:11 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I apologize..I should have put All :-) I just wanted to point out that critics does not mean hate. It’s a very important difference so please everybody, let’s be able to talk about someone and his/her weaknesses without being called haters.


36 posted on 06/13/2011 10:44:12 AM PDT by American Dream 246 (Open your eyes. Freedom is not a one day fight. Enemies of Freedom are legion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246
No worries!

I agree with your post, it is about near impossible around here lately to have a conversation with out being labeled something.

37 posted on 06/13/2011 10:48:33 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

We will seee if he comes back after studying on this one, but what he said in the interview was not good.


38 posted on 06/13/2011 10:51:31 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
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.

Exactly right.

If Cain wishes to return to the days of pre incorporation of the BOR, why doesn't he come out and say so?

Or is he just fumbling around?

39 posted on 06/13/2011 10:56:20 AM PDT by FreeReign (Voice in head: You need to share this now! Now! NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Do you also support that felons can not go to church, write letter, recieve a trial after conviction. Should we be able to execute someone for stealing gum. How can you take away someones rights and still say they are free. How can a convict have any rights.


40 posted on 06/13/2011 10:59:45 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

Typically, convicts are stripped of many rights. However, it is very common practice for ex-convicts to voluntarily appear before a judge to get their rights restored.

Their #1 restoration, by a long chalk, is the right to bear arms, and judges are usually sympathetic to them, unless their crime involved the violent use of a gun. The #2 restoration, which says something, is the return of the right to vote.

This restoration process is very interesting, because it clearly distinguishes rights from privileges. And yet judges may also have input into restoring some privileges, such as an ex-con who wishes a legal name change, because they have a notorious name that will result in further, extra-legal punishment by an unsympathetic public.

In some cases, judges might even agree to seal criminal records, or best of all, to expunge them, so though a federal record of a criminal will still exist, there will be no State record.


41 posted on 06/13/2011 11:26:28 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

Maybe they ought to do a background check before exercising other inalienable Rights. Like going to church on Sundays to only approved Churches and maybe a permit to speak in public...


42 posted on 06/13/2011 11:27:30 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
You don't.

Of course, if they try and commit a crime using said firearm... Shoot them.

Problem solved. Zero recidivism too...

43 posted on 06/13/2011 11:30:55 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

I don’t hate him.

I am simply going to remove him from my personal list of “viable candidates for whom to consider voting for president in 2012”.


44 posted on 06/13/2011 11:48:32 AM PDT by WayneS ("I hope you know this will go down on your PERMANENT record...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Then how do you stop illegals and criminals from buying a gun?

If someone is considered safe enough to be walking the streets a free citizen then I say let them have guns. If they can't be trusted with guns then they should not be loose at large.
45 posted on 06/13/2011 11:54:03 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

The right to vote, no such right.


46 posted on 06/13/2011 12:20:22 PM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

I am amazed sometimes when a Presidential candidate is thrown a question about an issue that will certainly come up in the campaign and they act as if they’ve never even thought about it before. Herman Cain relies too much on his black preacher speaking style.


47 posted on 06/13/2011 12:20:27 PM PDT by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

IMHO...

I’m supporting Cain even though he has to tone down his 2nd Amendment support. He the most conservative candidate that is still palatable to Independents and blue dog Dems. And he is conservative “enough” for now.

From the crazy Constitutionalist booby-hatchery... (so I hope no one is offended, I’m one of those 2nd Amendment “loons”)...

As far as the 2nd Amendment, a militia is intended for two times: when the nation’s wacked-out rulers turn the police and army against it’s own citizens (Founders wrote exactly that in personal writings) and for the case of invasion by an enemy force. In both cases, it does best if it is as heavily armed as possible. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about target shooting and hunting. The idea of personal defense from bad guys is not a “militia” item, but it logically goes along for the ride, as arms are nice for personal defense, so the writers of the 2nd Amendment obviously include this in their reasons for writing it.

It does no one any harm if a bazooka sits in the basement.

I have personally known people who would have legally not been able to acquire firearms; I don’t know if they had them, but they Constitutionally have the right.

It’s what they DO with them that’s the issue. If a crime is committed using the weapon, it’s a crime and it is punishable. The laws are there, they just have to be enforced. Everyone crying in the courtroom is told to believe that the murder would not have happened if the bad guy could no get his hands on a firearm because government had confiscated the guns of the citizen militia. But of course, like the printing press, knife and the rock, the gun has been invented and it can’t be uninvented, so the bad guy will always have a gun.

The ownership of the weapon in and of itself hurts no one.

Many people today shy away from buying a firearm precisly because they do not want to register with the government in any way, shape or form. And rightly so. The government has no need to know what weapons anyone owns other than to crash through their door in the middle of the night to confiscate them.

Why did the government never require us to strap a license plate to the a$$ of our horses ? Because it was nonsense and would have required tons of costly paperwork. Nowadays they have computers to make it practical, so we all have to strap a license plate to the a$$ of our car ? When a criminal can just switch plates and completely throw off the law temporarily, enough to commit mayhem. So it prevents no crime, it’s just a revenue source for the state.

As far as the insane, the felons, and the insane felons: if everyone carried a gun, they’d shoot about 1 person before they were dead, problem solved.

IMHO...


48 posted on 06/13/2011 2:04:16 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (Conservative Christian Capitalists - I encourage you to visit my Profile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
I personally am glad that my state (NJ) does background checks before issuing a gun permit...

A permit requirement is an infringement. And just TRY to get a carry permit here; if you're not connected, darned near impossible.

49 posted on 06/13/2011 2:54:10 PM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
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.

Yeah, saw that. Painful to watch.

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.

Cain is a good solid conservative. If we could just appoint someone, I am confident his instincts would be good and he'd mostly do the right things. The problem is this primary business is about nominating a candidate that can actually win a general election, and Cain just isn't ready for prime time. He gets away with the kind of gaffes he makes on Fox News Sunday and BoR only because no one takes him seriously. If we actually get to a point where he is a real contender and both the MSM and conservative media really start grilling him, he'd self destruct. He's just not anywhere near ready for a serious run at the presidency. Cain needs to suck it up and win a few local and state elections and get some experience as a candidate that can win an actual election.

50 posted on 06/13/2011 4:36:16 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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