examiner.com - Herman Cain on Gun Control

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/growing-questions-about-herman-cain

But perhaps the most troublesome statement of all was made by Cain during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. During that interview Cain stated that he supports gun control. As if that isn't bad enough, he went further to claim the issue of gun rights is a matter 'for the states to decide.'
In order to be certain as to what the candidate was actually saying, Blitzer asked him to confirm no less than 3 times his view that he supports gun control and would leave the issue of Second Amendment rights to the states.

We don't need to look at some interview on a frothing anti-2A "news" outlet with some washed-up talking head to know whether Cain is Pro-Constitution or not. All we need to do is look at his resume...

He was Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.

'Nuff sed...

Based upon this thread, I suddenly had some grave concerns about Cain's stance on guns. Then I watched the video. I wish he had stated his stance better, but I have no problem with it.

Here is the exchange:

BLITZER: How about gun control?

CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.

B: So what’s the answer on gun control?

C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…

C: Yes

B: Yes?

C: Yes.

B: So the answer is yes?

C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

Click to expand...

Yes, whatever gun laws there are should be the purview of the States. However, the States' gun laws should conform to McDonald. As president, Cain would stay out of the fray, except to say that he supports the Right, and that the issue will play out in the States. The courts should then take the States to task if their gun laws become, in the words of Cain, "onerous."

Dreamer said:

We don't need to look at some interview on a frothing anti-2A "news" outlet with some washed-up talking head to know whether Cain is Pro-Constitution or not. All we need to do is look at his resume...

He was Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.

'Nuff sed...

Click to expand...

Using your "logic", anyone who associates with people who have any measurable wealth at all makes them suspect. Your contempt of him is a resume enhancement for me.

eye95 said:

Based upon this thread, I suddenly had some grave concerns about Cain's stance on guns. Then I watched the video. I wish he had stated his stance better, but I have no problem with it.

Here is the exchange:

BLITZER: How about gun control?
CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.
B: So what’s the answer on gun control?
C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…
C: Yes
B: Yes?
C: Yes.
B: So the answer is yes?
C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

Yes, whatever gun laws there are should be the purview of the States. However, the States' gun laws should conform to McDonald. As president, Cain would stay out of the fray, except to say that he supports the Right, and that the issue will play out in the States. The courts should then take the States to task if their gun laws become, in the words of Cain, "onerous."

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think the OP is misleading. Since he was on a moonbat channel, merely having said "The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment." is far better than we could have ever expected a RINO to open up with. I would have liked if he promised to repeal all the federal laws period, but he wouldn't have that power anyway.

PrayingForWar said:

Using your "logic", anyone who associates with people who have any measurable wealth at all makes them suspect. Your contempt of him is a resume enhancement for me.

Click to expand...

I never mentioned his net worth. I just said he was an executive in the largest criminal organization in the US--an organization who's primary purpose is in direct violation of the US Constitution, and fundamentally contrary to one of the primary economic principals of the Founding Fathers...

[FONT=COMIC SANS MS,PALATINO,BOOKMAN OLD STYLE,HELVETICA,ARIAL,TIMES]"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. " --Thomas Jefferson[/FONT]

Click to expand...

It's only called "class warfare" when we fight back...

Dreamer said:

I never mentioned his net worth. I just said he was an executive in the largest criminal organization in the US--an organization who's primary purpose is in direct violation of the US Constitution, and fundamentally contrary to one of the primary economic principals of the Founding Fathers...



It's only called "class warfare" when we fight back...

Click to expand...

No, it's called a marxist revolution when you fight back. "Class warfare" is typified in knee jerk reactionary condemnation of the wealthy. It's no different than any other abhorrent form of bigotry or prejudice. It's the same tactics that empowered the likes of Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao etc. It's great that you can cloak yourself behind the bill of rights like all the other communist provacatuers can though, and pretend to promote constitutional values and free markets while assailing those people who've reaped the greatest benefits from it.

It shows the founders believed the republic was strong enough to allow egomaniacal sociopaths and their minions to preach insane political philosophy and blatant lies, and that they assumed the majority of people would be smarter than to believe everything (or really anything) people like you have to say.

PrayingForWar said:

No, it's called a marxist revolution when you fight back. "Class warfare" is typified in knee jerk reactionary condemnation of the wealthy. It's no different than any other abhorrent form of bigotry or prejudice. It's the same tactics that empowered the likes of Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao etc. It's great that you can cloak yourself behind the bill of rights like all the other communist provacatuers can though, and pretend to promote constitutional values and free markets while assailing those people who've reaped the greatest benefits from it.

Click to expand...

I particularly like the way you culled out the Jefferson quote about the evils of central banking in your response. Historical revisionism is the last refuge of the political scoundrel...

Along with Mussolini, Lenin, and Hitler, you need to lump in Jefferson, Jackson, Eisenhower, and several other Presidents if you disagree with my assertions and consider them radical and anti-American. Prominent Americans have been warning us against the undue influence of out-of-control big business and central banks since before this nation WAS a nation.

Gotta love those "inconvenient truths"...

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Click to expand...

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

Click to expand...

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." — James Madison

Click to expand...

"I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

Click to expand...

I have no hatred for people who have made their fortunes honestly.

But I cannot abide oligarchs, plutocrats, and economic sociopaths...

I am wondering if Cain is more pro-state or pro-Federal Government. It seems that he answered the question in a way that begged more questions.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I am wondering if Cain is more pro-state or pro-Federal Government. It seems that he answered the question in a way that begged more questions.

Click to expand...

Whether state or federal, he's more pro-government.

That's all you need to know: he thinks government is the answer.

Dreamer said:

I particularly like the way you culled out the Jefferson quote about the evils of central banking in your response. Historical revisionism is the last refuge of the political scoundrel...

Along with Mussolini, Lenin, and Hitler, you need to lump in Jefferson, Jackson, Eisenhower, and several other Presidents if you disagree with my assertions and consider them radical and anti-American. Prominent Americans have been warning us against the undue influence of out-of-control big business and central banks since before this nation WAS a nation.

Gotta love those "inconvenient truths"...




I have no hatred for people who have made their fortunes honestly.

But I cannot abide oligarchs, plutocrats, and economic sociopaths...

Click to expand...

Nice try pinko. You know damm well the site automatically "culls" previous quotes in responses. I didn't leave it out, it had nothing to do with the context of my accusation that you're a leftist hatemonger. It's things like that which prove what sort of propagandist you are.

Furthermore EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH has a "federal reserve" fractional banking system. Your tin foil hat messiah keeps talking about getting rid of it then going back to the gold standard, but he's also advocated selling off the gold reserves. So WTF? Sell off the gold, then what standard do we use? For all your bloviating about people not being "educated", you clearly seem to lack any measurable thinking skills at all.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

PrayingForWar said:

Nice try pinko ... my accusation that you're a leftist hatemonger. It's things like that which prove what sort of propagandist you are.

Click to expand...

When reasoned argument is lacking, the standard response is to revert to schoolyard tactics of name calling.

PrayingForWar said:

Furthermore EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH has a "federal reserve" fractional banking system. Your tin foil hat messiah keeps talking about getting rid of it then going back to the gold standard, but he's also advocated selling off the gold reserves. So WTF? Sell off the gold, then what standard do we use? For all your bloviating about people not being "educated", you clearly seem to lack any measurable thinking skills at all.

Click to expand...

Ah, so we are supposed to follow what the rest of the world does ... like lemmings, right off the cliff. Are you sure you understand what fractional reserve banking is? Do you understand that all it does is make everyone a debtor? Please supply a source for your accusation that Ron Paul has advocated selling off all our gold (as if we have any). When you do so, please make sure that the article includes a direct quote from him.

PrayingForWar said:

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Click to expand...

Why not end with the classic "neener neener neener"?

PrayingForWar said:

Nice try pinko.

Click to expand...

By throwing in this one sentence you have shown the audience that you have lost the argument. If you had a valid argument you wouldn't need name calling... some may have been inclined to agree with you, but you just showed them that your argument is weak and you are incapable of defending it.

[video=youtube;M5QGkOGZubQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ[/video]

eye95 said:

Based upon this thread, I suddenly had some grave concerns about Cain's stance on guns. Then I watched the video. I wish he had stated his stance better, but I have no problem with it.

Here is the exchange:



Yes, whatever gun laws there are should be the purview of the States. However, the States' gun laws should conform to McDonald. As president, Cain would stay out of the fray, except to say that he supports the Right, and that the issue will play out in the States. The courts should then take the States to task if their gun laws become, in the words of Cain, "onerous."

Click to expand...

So... are you saying that laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms are acceptable, so long as they are not "onerous?" If so, whose definition of "onerous" shall we use? The Bradys, for whom no gun law is onerous? Or the Constitutional purists, who believe that any law that infringes on or restricts the RKBA is "onerous" and unConstitutional?

I believe in state's rights so long as a state government does not abridge the rights guaranteed by the Constitution in the first ten Amendments. That would include disallowing a state government the ability to enact laws that would infringe on 2nd Amendment rights.

And, lest you infer that I'm implying that NO law whatsoever that restricts RKBA is Constitutional, I would posit that gun laws apply only to law abiding citizens. Those among us who have proven themselves incapable of obeying the laws of the state or who have been adjudicated as not being of sound mind have forfeited many of their rights, including RKBA.

Edited to delete duplicate post.

JamesCanby said:

So... are you saying that laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms are acceptable, so long as they are not "onerous?"... [This is as far as I bothered to read.]

Click to expand...

No. I am not.

Please do not try to restate what I say (not even in the guise of a question). You do it very poorly, but are quite good at dismantling what I did not say. If you are genuinely interested in a back-and-forth on this question, please ask respectfully what I mean, rather than grossly misstating my views cloaked as a question. I won't play that game.

I will be happy to address your concern if you knock of the misrepresentations of what I say. Otherwise, I will move on.

eye95 said:

No. I am not.

Please do not try to restate what I say (not even in the guise of a question). You do it very poorly, but are quite good at dismantling what I did not say. If you are genuinely interested in a back-and-forth on this question, please ask respectfully what I mean, rather than grossly misstating my views cloaked as a question. I won't play that game.

I will be happy to address your concern if you knock of the misrepresentations of what I say. Otherwise, I will move on.

Click to expand...

You said, "The courts should then take the States to task if their gun laws become, in the words of Cain, "onerous." I was simply asking you to define, in your opinion, when a law becomes "onerous." Or, lacking a definition of your own, whose definition of "onerous" we should accept. And how about knocking off the personal attacks and condescending attitude?

Thank you.

The law becomes "onerous" at the point where it impinges on the ability to carry arms (as intended by the Framers who authored the 2A) when and where one would without a permission slip.

For example, in Alabama, the law generally does not place restrictions on my ability to carry with a few exceptions. I am not allowed to carry withing 1000 feet of a demonstration (with or without a license). I am not allowed to carry in my car without a license. I am not allowed to carry in a school without a permission slip. I am not allowed to carry in a courthouse (with or without a license). These restrictions are "onerous." There are also a few "onerous" restrictions that cities and counties illegally have implemented in violation of preemption.

On the other hand, there are laws on the subject of guns that do not negatively impact my ability to carry, for example, the requirement for a license to conceal. While, as a matter of policy, I disagree with the requirement, I don't see it as an infringement and, therefore, not as "onerous." With the above fixes in the law, I will be able to carry where and when I will even with licensing of concealment in place. Concealment is not necessary to carry. It is merely an attendant behavior that has no enumerated protection.

And, to me, that is where the line is: Can I carry when and where I will? Laws that would cause the answer to be no are infringements and are "onerous."

Who makes the call as to what infringes and therefore is "onerous"? The courts.

JamesCanby said:

...And how about knocking off the personal attacks and condescending attitude?

Click to expand...

I saved this for a separate post, deciding to answer the rational question you posted with a rational answer.

The "attacks" were directed at your behavior in the quoted post, not at your person. When your actions are inappropriate, such as misrepresenting what I say and then dismantling the strawman that you build, I will criticize them.

Yes, there was a condescending tone in my post--as there was in your post to which I replied, in addition to your disingenuousness.

The beginning of your post was a perfect rational return to the topic. I hope you keep it that way, making unnecessary criticism of tactics.

eye95 said:

I saved this for a separate post, deciding to answer the rational question you posted with a rational answer.

The "attacks" were directed at your behavior in the quoted post, not at your person. When your actions are inappropriate, such as misrepresenting what I say and then dismantling the strawman that you build, I will criticize them.

Yes, there was a condescending tone in my post--as there was in your post to which I replied, in addition to your disingenuousness.

The beginning of your post was a perfect rational return to the topic. I hope you keep it that way, making unnecessary criticism of tactics.

Click to expand...

Ah. I see. Thank you for educating me. Given this and your previous explanations of your condescending attitude, I now understand and sympathize with your problem, like that of Congressman Weiner, with impulse control. That is, if you disagree with a poster's comments you cannot resist the impulse to be condescending. Such an unfortunate affliction. Perhaps there are meds or therapy that could help you with that affliction.

"Moving on."

JamesCanby said:

Ah. I see. Thank you for educating me. Given this and your previous explanations of your condescending attitude, I now understand and sympathize with your problem, like that of Congressman Weiner, with impulse control. That is, if you disagree with a poster's comments you cannot resist the impulse to be condescending. Such an unfortunate affliction. Perhaps there are meds or therapy that could help you with that affliction.

"Moving on."

Click to expand...

See, now, if you want to understand the difference between a personal attack, and taking someone to task for a very specific behavior, you have provided the perfect example of the former. Thank you for that.

As I said, I responded to condescension with condescension. May I take it my rational response satisfied your curiosity about my position since you had no further question on topic?

I, too, shall move on from this side distraction, but will respond to any further rational posts on the topic of what does and does not constitute "onerous" gun law.