Herman Cain and his position on the 2nd

[tnek]

I was trying to find any new info on him since his Wolf Blitzer comments. I was hoping he would clarify his position which is something he will need to do IMO.
I like a lot of things he says and Perry has done a lot of damage with his immigration debacle. Paul is still a favorite.

I'd just like to hear more from Cain and if anyone can provide links to any further statements by him on the issue.

Plus I'd rather not wade through 4 pages of barstool debate about the 14th.

 

[melensdad]

Cain is on my 'short list' of choices but I'm waiting for some definitive statements about the Right to Keep & Bear Arms!!! He has no record to run on, so he is a 2nd Amendment wild card.

 

[rooster007]

diddo

 

[redneckmedic]

No stance is most certainly better than "against" card. Unless someone actively seeks out to overturn existing legislation, the neutral position is fine by me. I think the NRA and other lobbyists are a better resource for recent conflicts as it is.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

When it comes to voting for Ron Paul, I don't

... know if I'm voting for Barney Fife, or Howdy Doody. So it'll be Cain.

 

[rooster007]

remember what happened when everyone voted for another smooth talking long legged mac daddy ........ youtube" long legged mac daddy search"

 

[indykid]

Don't quote me but I believe Cain said that the feds should stay out of it per the constitution but that the states should have some "reasonable" control.

Again, I don't remember where I heard him say it, but that is how I remember it.

 

[Hookfish]

Here are two links where Cain talks about the 2nd amendment. The first article shows him at the NRA American Values Leadership Conference where he states that the 2nd amendment was one of the things that the founding fathers got right. The second link doesn't give much info.

Herman Cain - The Second Amendment

Herman Cain: Gun Control A “States Issue.” Huh?

 

[MrSmitty]

Here are two links where Cain talks about the 2nd amendment. The first article shows him at the NRA American Values Leadership Conference where he states that the 2nd amendment was one of the things that the founding fathers got right. The second link doesn't give much info.

Herman Cain - The Second Amendment

Herman Cain: Gun Control A “States Issue.” Huh?

Great link! +1 rep'd!

 

[slackerisme]

Found this... much of the same as whats been posted.

If I read him correctly, he is saying that states have the right to lay requirements on the right. The blogger even says that recent SCOTUS decsions outlaw the states banning of guns. Cain doesn't say the states should be able to ban guns. Regulate does not equal ban.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Found this... much of the same as whats been posted.

If I read him correctly, he is saying that states have the right to lay requirements on the right. The blogger even says that recent SCOTUS decsions outlaw the states banning of guns. Cain doesn't say the states should be able to ban guns. Regulate does not equal ban.

Regulate still means infringe to me though.

 

[indykid]

Regulate still means infringe to me though.

Using the modern definition of the word, I totally agree.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If regulation (in the "modern" sense, meaning to make rules concerning) were to specify, as California does, gun registration, and were to include, as one bill on Jerry Brown's desk does, a measure requiring registration of ammo to a specific buyer, or if a regulation were emplaced regarding specific training that must be completed, these are all infringements, and all are extreme examples of it. A training requirement in law phrased, as such things sometimes are, in terms of "The state police shall develop a course of training sufficient in the estimation of the superintendent to ensure that the applicants for a license under this chapter are able to safely carry and operate a firearm.", it is only a pen-stroke for said superintendent, which is not an elected position, to require impossible feats of marksmanship and to pose the questions as essays. For those few people able to actually meet these subjective standards, we can prevent them from being licensed by only offering the training course once a year, with a class size limited to ten. The course is announced as to time and place no more than a week prior to the first session, and costs $600. Preference is given to LEOs for the ten spots, and they are exempt from fees.

Still think regulation is not equal to "ban"?

It's too easy to take it to this extreme. Case in point: To merely possess a firearm in Chicago, you must show that you have "range time" sufficient for their purposes, however, there are no ranges in Chicago and while some may now be built after a recent case, it's only because people have fought the onerous regulations that that has happened.

Mr. Cain is correct that such things are not a federal matter and permission for them to address guns at all is specifically denied. The fallacy is that the states are also forbidden in the same place, but given my druthers as to one or the other emplacing unConstitutional regulations, I'd choose to have them emplaced at the state level rather than federal, because it's far easier to influence the election of a state senator or governor than a federal officeholder.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rugertoter]

I was trying to find any new info on him since his Wolf Blitzer comments. I was hoping he would clarify his position which is something he will need to do IMO.
I like a lot of things he says and Perry has done a lot of damage with his immigration debacle. Paul is still a favorite.

I'd just like to hear more from Cain and if anyone can provide links to any further statements by him on the issue.

Plus I'd rather not wade through 4 pages of barstool debate about the 14th.

I saw Herman Cain say on the television, about three weeks ago, that he feels that state's rights should be the policy when it comes to the "gun control" issue. He said that the federal government should not really get too involved in the regulation of firearms. Now, that could be taken as a middle-ground response, but I don't think he really cares one way or the other about the gun debate. I think he kinda just wants to stay away from that hot potato.

 

[tnek]

I saw Herman Cain say on the television, about three weeks ago, that he feels that state's rights should be the policy when it comes to the "gun control" issue. He said that the federal government should not really get too involved in the regulation of firearms. Now, that could be taken as a middle-ground response, but I don't think he really cares one way or the other about the gun debate. I think he kinda just wants to stay away from that hot potato.

I feel you may be close to the truth. Sooner or later someone will hopefully pin him down more.

 

[Shoots4Fun]

remember what happened when everyone voted for another smooth talking long legged mac daddy ........ youtube" long legged mac daddy search"

Not to thread jack but I hadn't heard this for a while and enjoyed relistening when Rooster reminded me. For those who haven't heard it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&noredirect=1

Back on subject, I am waiting to hear some further details on Cain's stance as well...

 

[slackerisme]

If regulation (in the "modern" sense, meaning to make rules concerning) were to specify, as California does, gun registration, and were to include, as one bill on Jerry Brown's desk does, a measure requiring registration of ammo to a specific buyer, or if a regulation were emplaced regarding specific training that must be completed, these are all infringements, and all are extreme examples of it. A training requirement in law phrased, as such things sometimes are, in terms of "The state police shall develop a course of training sufficient in the estimation of the superintendent to ensure that the applicants for a license under this chapter are able to safely carry and operate a firearm.", it is only a pen-stroke for said superintendent, which is not an elected position, to require impossible feats of marksmanship and to pose the questions as essays. For those few people able to actually meet these subjective standards, we can prevent them from being licensed by only offering the training course once a year, with a class size limited to ten. The course is announced as to time and place no more than a week prior to the first session, and costs $600. Preference is given to LEOs for the ten spots, and they are exempt from fees.

Still think regulation is not equal to "ban"?

It's too easy to take it to this extreme. Case in point: To merely possess a firearm in Chicago, you must show that you have "range time" sufficient for their purposes, however, there are no ranges in Chicago and while some may now be built after a recent case, it's only because people have fought the onerous regulations that that has happened.

Mr. Cain is correct that such things are not a federal matter and permission for them to address guns at all is specifically denied. The fallacy is that the states are also forbidden in the same place, but given my druthers as to one or the other emplacing unConstitutional regulations, I'd choose to have them emplaced at the state level rather than federal, because it's far easier to influence the election of a state senator or governor than a federal officeholder.

Blessings,
Bill

Does the 2nd apply to ammo now as well? Would you compare Indiana's regulations to a ban? I'm gonna go ahead and guess no and stand with what I said. I do see your point though.

 

[45-70]

Here are two links where Cain talks about the 2nd amendment. The first article shows him at the NRA American Values Leadership Conference where he states that the 2nd amendment was one of the things that the founding fathers got right. The second link doesn't give much info.

Herman Cain - The Second Amendment

Herman Cain: Gun Control A “States Issue.” Huh?

Excellent, thanks for the info. +1

 

[bingley]

Still think regulation is not equal to "ban"?

How about kids? The 2A doesn't say anything about not letting kids buy guns with their paper route money. Should a ten-year-old be able to walk into a gun store without the knowledge or approval of his parents, and buy a Hi-Point, or worse, a Glock?

What about driver's license? Every state has regulations about how it's awarded. Is there a ban on driver's license? Or a ban on cars?

Sure, you can regulate something to death, which is what you're talking about, but not all regulations are "regulations to death."

Da Bing

 

[Octomonkey]

I can't see how the 2nd Amendment is something that is to be left up to the States. It doesn't state anything about "Congress shall write no law..." but simply "...shall not be infringed." When the States made the decision to ratify the US Constitution and join the Union, they agreed to abide by the instructions outlined in the Constitution. Upon doing so, they are making the agreement that whatever is not specifically stated in the Constitution is left up to them to decide, as per the 10th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment, an Amendment the States agreed upon to follow, specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, therefore they are prohibited from infringing upon that right. It makes no sense to argue that the Constitution allows for the States to prohibit firearms while having an Amendment specifically stating that right shall not be infringed. If that was the case, then what is the point of even having a 2nd Amendment? It's like saying the States can pass laws to prevent people from going to church, having a trial by jury, or being able to criticize their government leaders since the Constitution doesn't specifically state the States cannot do it. They were written to protect all Americans' life, liberty, and property, and the 2nd Amendment is the one to defend life, liberty, and property. Undermining the 2nd Amendment only weakens the foundation of the entire Document.