Ben Carson now gets the 2A

Afrikeber said:

I do not think Mr Carson could be any more clear as to his position on the 2nd Ammendment. His recent words spoken are my passion.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

They had experience, but they never intended "politician" to be the primary thing on your resume. All of the Framer's had other jobs. Farmers, lawyers, printers, doctors etc. They didn't support themselves strictly by doing politics. I am involved in Annapolis and the 2A fight. I have familiarity with how the system works. It isn't my day job.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...-of-the-first-congress-vs-the-112th-congress/

Click to expand...

MikeTF said:

I'd prefer someone who actually created something from nothing: Mark Cuban.

Click to expand...

Schipperke said:

I do see a theme in the list true to this day, attorney. I do know the three delegates in 15 have real jobs for certain. Dumais was my neighbor's (husband) Divorce attorney last year . She must be OK, he kept the house! Hildago was a police officer, then over a ten year stint in marketing. Miller was a civil engineer, and Delaney? That guy may be worth around $200M today. He founded public companies. I really do not think John is supporting himself in public office. I'm not going to confuse being "elected" to multiple terms as the politicians fault. If people want to keep someone, so be it. The barrier of entry in to politics may be challenging for sure.

O'Malley, now there is a guy that stepped in day one. As far as these younger people now cutting their teeth as interns, then getting that law degree and stepping right in the arena, why not.

Click to expand...

T'Challa said:

I'm doing my homework on Cuban.... I'm on the fence about him. I like the way he worked his way up. Not sure I like some of his politics.

Click to expand...

MikeTF said:

I was joking. I have no idea what his politics are. I just like the way he thinks.

Click to expand...

T'Challa said:

I hear you. I do not like the political "elite" (ie. Jeb Bush, Hilary Clinton, etc). I already had one Bush and one Clinton in the Oval Office, I'm looking for some new perspectives and some new direction. None of the current candidates have caught my eye. I do like Carson, but not to be my President. He can be my surgeon any day! I wouldn't mind him on someone's cabinet or as a Senator representing MD in congress.

Click to expand...

GUNSnROTORS said:

There were two "bushes"... Or do you consider one to be just a "shrub"?

Click to expand...

clandestine said:

The undercover Left, Libertarians, and Anarchists are worried as seen by posts in this thread. All 3 are just socialists in different garb.

Click to expand...

Silverlode said:

Well, this I too have a serious problem with. Still waiting to hear a better option that is realistic and not philosophically sound yet a realistically impossible alternative. There isn't going to be an immediate shift to a system that would please most of us, so in the meantime can we take baby steps back towards liberty?

Click to expand...

Free Radical said:

I'm with you. I find this idea to be worthwhile as of late, but I'm not sure. Like Jefferson, though, "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."

And I'm all in favor of baby steps. But people have been voting with fingers crossed since 1788 expecting baby steps toward liberty, receiving only a steady march toward tyranny—left foot, then right.

Click to expand...

Free Radical said:

I'm with you. I find this idea to be worthwhile as of late, but I'm not sure. Like Jefferson, though, "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."

And I'm all in favor of baby steps. But people have been voting with fingers crossed since 1788 expecting baby steps toward liberty, receiving only a steady march toward tyranny—left foot, then right.

Click to expand...

EL1227 said:

I tend to agree. Carson is a smart man, and I don't mean politically. His initial 2A response was based on his emotional reaction to dealing with gun-shot wounds in the ER. Physicians are trained to suppress their emotions when dealing with trauma so as to effectively give treatment, but that doesn't stop them from having a psychological response.

But as a learned man, I think that he sought out the truth. And while he still needs to reconcile his emotional/psychological response, he's come a long way in understanding it.

Click to expand...

Silverlode said:

So you want to replace our current tyranny with a form of feudalism, where might makes right and you get only as many rights and as much protection as you can afford? Outside of the unrealistic vacuum, void of the realities of human nature, in which fools like communists/socialists argue Utopian ideals, the system proposed in this video is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

Silverlode said:

So you want to replace our current tyranny with a form of feudalism, where might makes right and you get only as many rights and as much protection as you can afford? Outside of the unrealistic vacuum, void of the realities of human nature, in which fools like communists/socialists argue Utopian ideals, the system proposed in this video is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

Silverlode said:

Outside of the unrealistic vacuum, void of the realities of human nature, in which fools like communists/socialists argue Utopian ideals, the system proposed in this video is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

Free Radical said:

A realist reading of history convinces me that might has always made right. Thucydides realized it 2500 years ago: "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power. The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must." The more we can spread might around, the less problematic this becomes. Is it not for this reason that we want a wider distribution of implements of violence (to wit, firearms)?



I'm sure King George issued a similar wave of the hand at the idea of representative government in the American colonies. Before any system is reified, it is a "utopian ideal." I'm curious about what you think is ludicrous, though? Where does the reasoning go wrong? It seems to me that "human nature" makes a monopoly on governance even more dangerous. If a tendency to lie, cheat, rape, murder, and pillage is the nature of all humans—even the more suave and loquacious among us—then giving monopoly authority to a group of humans (i.e. liars, cheaters, rapists, murderers, and pillagers) seems to be the exact wrong move. You're already paying for protection and justice services. Might as well get people who have to compete for customers to do it and do it competently.

EDIT: It doesn't quite seem like you understand what feudalism was.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

It is kind of like McCauley. McCauley was initially anti-gun if you believe what he says in his General Assembly testimony this past session, and I do believe him. However, after looking into the matter. After reading up on it. After talking to gun owners. After talking to guys at the AGC. McCauley changed his position.

I have been around firearms my entire life. For people that have not, which I initially found hard to understand, it is hard for them to understand. Even harder for them to wrap their heads around the real reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

1. The Imprint Period. Up to the age of seven, we are like sponges, absorbing everything around us and accepting much of it as true, especially when it comes from our parents. The confusion and blind belief of this period can also lead to the early formation of trauma and other deep problems. The critical thing here is to learn a sense of right and wrong, good and bad. This is a human construction which we nevertheless often assume would exist even if we were not here (which is an indication of how deeply imprinted it has become).

2. The Modeling Period. Between the ages of eight and thirteen, we copy people, often our parents, but also other people. Rather than blind acceptance, we are trying on things like suit of clothes, to see how they feel. We may be much impressed with religion or our teachers. You may remember being particularly influenced by junior school teachers who seemed so knowledgeable—maybe even more so than your parents.

3. The Socialization Period. Between 13 and 21, we are very largely influenced by our peers. As we develop as individuals and look for ways to get away from the earlier programming, we naturally turn to people who seem more like us. Other influences at these ages include the media, especially those parts which seem to resonate with the values of our peer groups.

Click to expand...

Silverlode said:

I allowed my mind to extrapolate and this proposed system ends in feudal city states is my guess where the most powerful/wealthy rule in an unchecked oligarchy. And yes, I get it, one could argue that is what we have now.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you stated. For all it's potential (although unrealistic) good, that system isn't as good as the one we have. The problem isn't the method of government but that the people need to take the power back. If we live by the constitution as intended, while nothing would be perfect, it would be better than any other proposed method in my opinion. And while I have a serious problem with any level of govt having a monopoly on violent force, I'm not quite ready to hand it over to a less regulated body (in terms of law enforcement). Privatizing the police might be a true epiphany. Doing away with the entire legal system with it is crazy talk.

Whatever method we choose will fail regardless because only when the majority of us feel that we have a moral ideal to uphold can we keep the amoral in check. This is the only possible counter to might making right. The further as a society we move away from God, the faster it crumbles. But I digress...

Click to expand...