Posted on 05/29/2014 9:53:54 PM PDT by Nachum
Dr. Ben Carson, potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, has been enjoying near "rock star" status in ostensibly conservative circles. If that continues, "conservatives" had might as well give up trying to cast themselves as representing the "pro-gun" position, because Carson's stance on guns is one that would probably not displease the Brady Campaign.
Carson first raised gun owners' hackles in March, 2013, when he blithely told Glenn Beck that the right to own semi-automatic firearms is contingent on where one lives. From Mediate:
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.”
“I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated.
However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
It’s amazing how certain Freepers will swoon over any potential black nominee for president. Carson is also pro-amnesty, which is a guarantee of all future Democrats as president. But some Freepers can’t resist the idea of supporting him for president.
Just because.
You could have the right, but not be wise to use it. The question he is actually answering is whether it would be WISE to have a high-penetration weapon in the city. Probably not. And if you used it anyhow and the bullet went into the next apartment and killed someone, don’t cry about the repercussions.
If one right can be restricted by zip code, then they all can.
And there is no shortage of crazy people living in rural areas, either.
Ben Carson is dangerously wrong on this.
He’s talking about what’s wise, IMHO. It might not be that difficult to get him to make a distinction between what’s wise and what ought to be a regulation set in stone.
Thats not true at all.
2012 here played out different from that
Sarah sarah Sarah.....did not run
Then Newt and the Ricks
Then Cain...
Romney was last resort
Carson is just black.....otherwise he would be me or you
Well meaning conservatives who are nobodies to national media
While all this was happening Romney was standing pretty.
Finally, after everyone from a Texas governor to a retail industry businessman to a former House Speaker had had their time in the limelight - and a spectacular crash - the only person left was Romney.
What happened next? Romney moves in and sweeps 43 delegates. His NEXT competitor was Santorum with 6. SIX!
Now, I cannot vote. I am not an American citizen, and all I could do is watch from the sidelines. I used to think the Achilles heel of Conservatism was lethargy (from when I was helping in grassroots campaigning for the Bush admin, and realized most young people couldn't give a damn), and then I thought it was not having a proper narrative that espoused the advantages of Conservatism (I still think that is a BIG issue). However, I have realized another big issue exists. Maybe even bigger than our apparent inability to craft an appealing narrative.
That flaw is that we eat our own.
If a candidate is not perfect - in any way - we fire away. Now, I am not saying that we should accept compromises left, right and center.
No.
However, before we start destroying (mostly) Conservative candidates, we should first ensure that the RINOs/CINOs are eliminated first. First get rid of the Romneys and McCains from the running, and then once that is done y'all are more than welcome to turn guns on each other to your heart's content. This is because, once it is only (mostly) Conservative candidates left, then whomever wins will at least be mostly conservative.
However, if we destroy our own first - even with their flaws - we guarantee that the last man/woman standing is a barely Conservative.
My hope is that the next GOP primaries will include lessons learned from the 2012 Cycle. That we will work towards ensuring that the Barely Conservatives are kicked out early, and then people can pound away at each other.
However, I am convinced that the party as a whole is not that ....logical (I wanted to say 'intelligent') ...and that it will be a repeat of 2012. We will destroy anyone who is 80% of what we want, and yet we will not be turning focus on the Barely Conservative who is around 35% of what we want.
Result: That is how a Jeb Bush can become the nominee! Yes, you read that. That is how a Jeb Bush can end up as the nominee.
Now, once something like that (not necessarily Jeb) happens, the Conservative Base is demoralized, the GOP elite guy will not ahve full support, and that GOP nominee will face a Democrat nominee (maybe Hillary Clinton) and a Liberal base that is very energized over the 'First Female President.' This will be more formidable than the 'First Black President,' but I do not expect the GOP to realize that. Hillary can be defeated, but it will require serious work.
Result? Another replay of Obama beating McCain or Obama beating Romney. I know some say it was due to rigging, but the truth is that any rigging was simply icing on the cake.
Then there will be 4 more years of posting on FR, following which the whole cycle will be repeated.
The GOP elite really laugh at Conservatives, but not as much as the Liberals do.
NOTE: This is not support for Dr. Carson. It is a general post about the general field of Conservative Candidates once the GOP Primary starts. Defeat the Barely Conservative candidate first, and then we can sling mud at each other.
Dr. Carson is a smart man whose views have likely been based on what he has experienced as as an MD in a not so lovely neighborhood.
***************************
Nope. He’s a well recognized pediatric neurosurgeon; not an MD in a bad neighborhood.
Would that be the Condi Rice who voted for the Current Occupant?
A liberal rag trying to preemptively turn conservatives on a potential (and I question that “fact”) GOP candidate...
While I disagree with Ben Carson on his view of guns, I am not, and hopefully we are all not a single-issue voter. As president, he cannot single handedly implement gun control. He’s never stated any intentions of attacking the second amendment. I think this is simply a preemptive liberal attack, and a good one from some of the responses. If you’re a single-issue voter, you are a handicap to our conservative movement...
And Like Huckabee and Santorum before him, he will suck all the wind out of the process, drag it out and deflect any Conservative Alternative from emerging to the point we end up with Jeb, just like en up with McCain and Romney...
Their is a one non politico I think will throw their hat in, but mums the word for now and he is a game changer...
Friendly fire agit-prop or not, I do not consider one who publically espouses conditional ownership of a semi-automatic weapon based on locale some little purity screed, myself.
We have a document that affirms our right to ownership of firearms (and that includes semi-automatics) without infringement. Licensing requirements aside, banning them based solely on locale is infringement, and it is not a “purity screed.”
I beg to differ. “We” didn’t destroy Palin, Cain or anyone. The Brown Shirt Media did. If a Col. West, let’s say, told the BSM to pound sand, he wasn’t talking to them, anyway, he just might “jump the shark”. Frankly, I don’t see Carson doing that. Both are “good men”, one is a leader.
I am not a Pediatric Neurosurgeon, though I do own a book autographed and given to me by Luis Schut, and did work with Lee Sutton and Derek Bruce for a while and have been personally f’ed in the a$$ by Dave McLone. I wills say this, in regard to “eating our own”. If one thinks that “curing poverty by giving poor people money” or any variation on this theme is not a failed experiment that has been beaten to death already, you are NOT a “conservative” no matter what hat you wear or label you apply. I don’t think this can be said enough or over emphasized. I believe it was Senator Davey Crockett who gave a speech in that chamber to the effect that the gentlemen listening who wanted to “help the victims of a fire in DC who had lost their homes they should open their own checkbook. Just because of their proximity to the Capitol their needs were not elevated above those of Americans who may have also lost their homes to fire but didn’t enjoy the sympathy of the Senators just because they lacked proximity.” Even then there were those who “just didn’t get it”.
I believe it was Paul who said “we wrestle not with...”
It’s time to begin the circular firing squad that’s so popular here. A Soros troll will say that he would rather vote for the Democrat nominee if DR. Carson gets the GOP nomination ... in three, two, one ...
What you said...
“to keep the government running efficiently, effectively, and Constitutionally”
I must be missing something here.
All E.R.’s are “bad neighborhoods” and his specialty is necessary in many cases due to blunt trauma.
Well he’s black, and that’s a selling point to republicans. You know, the whole racism thing.
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.