Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It's not just "them" that seek to erode your rights... Ben Carson on the 2nd

What Ben Carson REALLY Thinks About The 2nd Amendment Will Have Millions FURIOUS

“Let’s put on the table — what is the reason for the Second Amendment?” Carson told Andrea Mitchell during a Thursday appearance on MSNBC. “And, is there a reason that we need to change those things right now?”
This is exactly why I never felt great about Mr. Carson when he was running in the primary... You gotta watch these people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,094 Posts
The time for discussion is over.

Immigration
National security
Federal enforcement of the COTUS
Government spending more than it takes in
Until the Federal government holds up it's end of the oath it has to the country concerning the four subjects i listed we as a country will continue to circle the drain.
If we circle the drain long enough people will not care what Dr.Carson or anybody else thinks about anything let alone guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
What was his answer to those two questions? If the first was "To secure our freedom from a tyrannical govt" and the second was a resounding "NO!", then I see no problem. But, I will agree just posing the questions themselves in congress is playing with fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIKECIB

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,276 Posts
Indeed, while there is much to admire about Ben Carson, he seems to think everything is negotiable and that those who want to strip away our rights will be satisfied with a few concessions.

He would lose the war for the sake of a single battle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
I no longer supported him the moment I heard his interview w Glenn Beck where he stated he doesn't have a problem with people owning guns in the country but that we don't want them in the city "with all the people around".

He's definitely not a committed pro 2A. Saw that a long time ago.


"I miss America"
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I no longer supported him the moment I heard his interview w Glenn Beck where he stated he doesn't have a problem with people owning guns in the country but that we don't want them in the city "with all the people around".

He's definitely not a committed pro 2A. Saw that a long time ago.


"I miss America"
I must have missed that... I remember he dodged every question about his 2A stance, even early on, on his facebook page, which set my alarm bells off. If you don't agree with it then at least be man enough to say so and suffer the consequences... Typical politician; which is why I dislike most of them. They're all liars and wear whatever face they feel will play to the audience in front of them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
374 Posts
Be careful where you get your "facts." Carson has flaws as a POTUS candidate but his 2A views aren't one of them. He is a strong supporter. Always has been. His 2013 statement regarding ar-15 type rifles was mostly taken out-of-context and has been used against him since.

Do a little investigating regarding "conservativetribune.com" and you'll find that sensationalism and completely baseless assertions are how they survive. Not something that should be repeated as "fact."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,272 Posts
The mistake is to assume that the nature of Homo Sapien sapien has changed much from the days off napping rocks and pasting greasy ashes onto the living room walls, to wielding more modern weapons and artistic tools. Mankind is the only beast that gets to misunderstand it's own nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIKECIB

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Be careful where you get your "facts." Carson has flaws as a POTUS candidate but his 2A views aren't one of them. He is a strong supporter. Always has been. His 2013 statement regarding ar-15 type rifles was mostly taken out-of-context and has been used against him since.

Do a little investigating regarding "conservativetribune.com" and you'll find that sensationalism and completely baseless assertions are how they survive. Not something that should be repeated as "fact."
Out of context?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservative-hero-ben-carson-to-beck-you-have-no-right-to-semi-automatic-weapons-in-large-cities/

"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.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,272 Posts
Out of context?

?Conservative Hero? Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities | Mediaite

"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.”
The rural urban divide is so passe. Sodom and Gomorrah are so yesterday. Who cares about the likes of Chicago and Baltimore anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grantspastor

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
What was his answer to those two questions? If the first was "To secure our freedom from a tyrannical govt" and the second was a resounding "NO!", then I see no problem. But, I will agree just posing the questions themselves in congress is playing with fire.
OTOH, presenting the essential question of the value, worth and point of the BOR and the 2A protections can be a good thing. Gets the discussion out there. Provides another opportunity to lay out the merits, via a forum other than some YouTube harangue or forum discussion.

Of course, that presupposes the people posing the question actually value the BOR and see the point.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Be careful where you get your "facts." Carson has flaws as a POTUS candidate but his 2A views aren't one of them. He is a strong supporter. Always has been. His 2013 statement regarding ar-15 type rifles was mostly taken out-of-context and has been used against him since.

Do a little investigating regarding "conservativetribune.com" and you'll find that sensationalism and completely baseless assertions are how they survive. Not something that should be repeated as "fact."
A. I am pretty careful where I get my facts.
B. He's absolutely never been, nor is he now, a "strong supporter" of the 2A. In fact, he's pretty much anything but, IMO. If you have some verifiable sources that illustrate something different then I'm all ears.
C. The interview with MSNBC was published two days ago, not from 2015, and that's where he made the statements that I quoted. There's no 'out of context' at all.
D. You can listen to them for yourself in the video embedded within the article, so regardless of what opinion you have of the linked source, their article directly relates to the video, which is, once again, linked within the article. Nothing in their article would I call sensationalism and it's most certainly not 'completely baseless accusations' unless you're going to claim that the MSNBC video was faked. Which would be a real trick since it's posted on MSNBC's YouTube page...

I'm OK with a healthy dose of pragmatic skepticism but I think, in this case, it's you that needs to be careful about trying to discredit something without any due diligence; which appears to be the case here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,382 Posts
Never trusted the man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,296 Posts
Dr. Carson was pretty clear in clarifying his stance on "inner city" guns and owning AR's:

Ben Carson: 2nd Amendment Keeps Govt from Dominating

Lastly, we asked Carson about arguments for and against certain types of firearms, particularly as those arguments hinge on legislative efforts to do away with semiautomatics or certain semiautomatics.

Carson responded by saying that, after the trauma he saw practicing medicine, he was himself unsure of the value of having semiautomatics in crowded cities. But after further consideration and “looking at the history,” he realized there was no logic or virtue in opposing one type of firearm over another.

This is what Carson told us:


The real purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to be able to protect themselves against an overly aggressive government. In order to do that, they need to have any kind of weapon that they may have, legally. And that includes semiautomatic weapons.

So, if the source that is trying to dominate you has those weapons, but you don’t have them–if all you have are pea-shooters–then your defense of yourself is not going to be very effective.
The media twists and turns things until they'd have you believing that Dr. Carson wants to confiscate our guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Dr. Carson was pretty clear in clarifying his stance on "inner city" guns and owning AR's:

Ben Carson: 2nd Amendment Keeps Govt from Dominating



The media twists and turns things until they'd have you believing that Dr. Carson wants to confiscate our guns.
Doesn't seem very clear to me. He gave two different answers in the quote you provided. And the latter of the two contradict the answer he gave Beck that I posted above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,993 Posts
For a while, Dr. Carson was, or thought he was, a viable politician for a high power position.
At that juncture, ALL politicians wield the english language with nebulous statements; allowing themselves a escape route for the words they utter.

Now that Dr. Carson's words are less relevant, (may I add a wealthy Dr. Carson), we begin to see his true colors.

Once we begin to argue the validity of self defense based on "physical location", we play the liberal anti freedom game.
The assumption of this argument is "you don't need self defense here; only here, here, and here"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
For a while, Dr. Carson was, or thought he was, a viable politician for a high power position.
At that juncture, ALL politicians wield the english language with nebulous statements; allowing themselves a escape route for the words they utter.

Now that Dr. Carson's words are less relevant, (may I add a wealthy Dr. Carson), we begin to see his true colors.

Once we begin to argue the validity of self defense based on "physical location", we play the liberal anti freedom game.
The assumption of this argument is "you don't need self defense here; only here, here, and here"
Carson has turned-out to be a BIG disappointment, in a number of ways. His squish views on Natural Rights are problematic, at best.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Dr. Carson was pretty clear in clarifying his stance on "inner city" guns and owning AR's:

Ben Carson: 2nd Amendment Keeps Govt from Dominating



The media twists and turns things until they'd have you believing that Dr. Carson wants to confiscate our guns.
Yeah, I'm sorry but that sounds more like damage control and given the fact that he was still in the race back then, it's probably all that was. I've gone back and looked at numerous interviews and articles written since I posted this and I, at best, can call myself dubious about his honest feelings on the subject. He has entertained the ideas of banning semi autos and 'high capacity' magazines and then he's come back with saying he's not going to support that idea. I, personally, can't trust that his change of opinion isn't anything more than a change for political purposes only. I honestly believe that what he just said in the MSNBC interview proves that, at best, he's still not entirely convinced that his old "ban the gun in the city" mentality doesn't have some virtue.

Back when he was still in the running for president, he writes this, which on its face seems to be a fairly strong pro 2a stance yet now he's saying things like "let's put the 2a on the table" and "what is the reason for the 2a and is there a reason to change those things right now". I'm sorry but if he truly believed what he wrote in October, then he'd not say that the Second Amendment should be 'put on the table' and be up for debate based on whatever 'data' he thinks is relevant.

FWIW, I've never said the guy was out to take away our guns but he did plenty of fence sitting early on and that generally causes me to lose trust in someone. Also, I really wanted to like the guy. I thought he had a lot of good ideas and seemed to be someone who had a chance of energizing non-base voters, which the R's needed badly. I do, however, believe that he's a person who struggles with an internal belief that simply doesn't play well with the political platform of his party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
I think a lot of assumptions are being drawn from what Carson said in that interview. He didn't state a position at all. He just said we need to look at the reasoning of why the second amendment exists, logically. I don't recall him ever citing anything other than a strong supporting stance of the 2A. Especially on the debate stage. Does anyone have links to him speaking otherwise?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nmuskier and Patti
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top