Herman Cain And Gun Control

[Rampdog]

Herman Cain doesn't strike me as a stupid man. That leaves willfully ignorant. Having watched him in a few interviews I believe that to be the case. His knowledge of foreign policy and affairs is practically nonexistant and I felt embarassed for him watching him double talk in an attempt to cover for his ignorance. It seems it extends to his knowledge of our rights also. His answer to all questions seems to be the same, "make sure you are working on the right problem, set the right priorities, surround yourself with good people, great people, and make sure you put together the right plans." When asked to clarify he simply repeats the statement. I read his interview with Blitzer. One one hand he believes the states should "be allowed to control the gun situation" while on the other hand saying, "I don't support, you know, onerous legislation that's going to restrict people's rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment." He comes across as wishy-washy and uninformed. He would make Muslims prove their loyalty to the Constitution before he would appoint them to his administration, something he wouldn't force on those of other faiths. This is definately not a man I would vote for.

 

[rugertoter]

Man, damn. I was actually thinking he might not be that bad either, but that soft shoe answer is just a way of getting around answering the question. The whole idea here is that the anti gunners WANT a Federal law overriding state and local laws, and when you have a guy that says something like that, it leaves me to believe that he does not really support gun rights. JMHO.

 

[mrjarrell]

Bear in mind that Cain's position is the same position as the Brady bunch. Home Rule is their watch phrase.

 

[Bubba]

@finity:

My phone isn't keyboard enough to counter your argument point-by-point. However, bear in mind that when the constitution was ratified the supreme political entity was the state. The People gave power to the state, and the federal level was a clearing house to address issues between or involving state governments. A state government did indeed have rights as a sovereign body, and the state had representation in the Senate. The passage of the 17th amendment in 1913 that changed the Senators from state-appointed to popular election was a large nail in the coffin of the state as the focus of government.

Under the BoR prior to incorporation states had the power to make laws that the BoR forbade the federal government from enacting. Some things such as speech and religion were verboten for the feds but ok for the state (Congress shall make no law...) while other things such as gun ownership were off-limits to everyone (...shall not be infringed.).

You speak of not wanting to live under Illinois gun laws and how we cheered the Heller decision but when it boils down to it the opinion of Hoosiers has no bearing on what happens in Illinois. We have no representations in the Illinois legislature and do not pay Illinois taxes unless we choose to travel to that state. While I guarantee not all Illinois residents approve of their gun laws not all Indiana residents approve of our gun laws. Each state was designed to (and should, IMHO) exercise the powers granted by their constitution to create a place its citizens want to live in. If that citizen doesn't like what his state is doing, they can either convince their fellows to lobby for change or they can leave for happier climes.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

Cain will not have my vote, for this and many other reasons.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

@finity:

My phone isn't keyboard enough to counter your argument point-by-point. However, bear in mind that when the constitution was ratified the supreme political entity was the state. The People gave power to the state, and the federal level was a clearing house to address issues between or involving state governments. A state government did indeed have rights as a sovereign body, and the state had representation in the Senate. The passage of the 17th amendment in 1913 that changed the Senators from state-appointed to popular election was a large nail in the coffin of the state as the focus of government.

Under the BoR prior to incorporation states had the power to make laws that the BoR forbade the federal government from enacting. Some things such as speech and religion were verboten for the feds but ok for the state (Congress shall make no law...) while other things such as gun ownership were off-limits to everyone (...shall not be infringed.).

You speak of not wanting to live under Illinois gun laws and how we cheered the Heller decision but when it boils down to it the opinion of Hoosiers has no bearing on what happens in Illinois. We have no representations in the Illinois legislature and do not pay Illinois taxes unless we choose to travel to that state. While I guarantee not all Illinois residents approve of their gun laws not all Indiana residents approve of our gun laws. Each state was designed to (and should, IMHO) exercise the powers granted by their constitution to create a place its citizens want to live in. If that citizen doesn't like what his state is doing, they can either convince their fellows to lobby for change or they can leave for happier climes.

+1 and repped.

It's obvious that finity took a great deal of time putting together his points, and I don't have time to refute them right now. The point I would leave you with is that it is the Constitution of the United States, not Constitution of the Single State. States [STRIKE]are[/STRIKE] were intended to be sovereign, with federal intervention only when and where absolutely necessary. State sovereignty was eliminated with the 14 Amendment, and so was the freedom from a centralized government.

 

[Rampdog]

Man, damn. I was actually thinking he might not be that bad either, but that soft shoe answer is just a way of getting around answering the question. The whole idea here is that the anti gunners WANT a Federal law overriding state and local laws, and when you have a guy that says something like that, it leaves me to believe that he does not really support gun rights. JMHO.

There it is. I remember Obama saying he supported the Second Amendment also. We all know that was a sham.

 

[rugertoter]

Now that Bachmann has thrown her hat into the ring, I think I'm leaning her way.

 

[Rob377]

Bear in mind that Cain's position is the same position as the Brady bunch. Home Rule is their watch phrase.

It's also the same as Ron Paul's position, vis-a-vis incorporation and the BOR application to the states.

 

[Rampdog]

Now that Bachmann has thrown her hat into the ring, I think I'm leaning her way.

I'm not sure I can trust her either. A few months back she put out her version of what should be cut in the federal budget. Chief among them was cutting the compensation of wounded veterans. This was after her vow to take care of the troops. Absent was any mention of farm subsidy cuts that her family enjoys.

 

[LPMan59]

based on what i've read, i dont care for mr cain's 2A views. But i still thought he did a good job in the debate the other night. And regardless of who is nominated, they will be a far better choice than reelecting Obama

 

[truckie011]

Interstate commerce is the purview of the Federal Government. Intrastate is the purview of the states.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In other words, the Federal government of the United States was not permitted to establish a state religion. However 9 of the 13 original states and commonwealths had Constitutions establishing state religions. This was permissible as the First Amendment restriction was on the Federal, not state, governments. However, incorporation, and the subsequent interpretation, turned that doctrine on its head.



Equal protection clause establishes the tenents for Federal laws regulating areas that are clearly state issues under the guise that without Federal intervention equal protection does not exist.

The interpretations are possible because of incorporation. Without the 14th Amendment there is no justification for most Federal activity. With the 14th Amendment all things are possible.

My problem with your position is.. If the states who agreed that the constitution was the law of the land when they became a state, can say that they have the right to establish a religion, because the 1st amendment only applies to the federal government. Then what is to stop them from saying they are exempt from the remaining 9 amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights.
To use your position the states can ignore the 4th, & 5th amendments as well as the rest.
It has always been my understanding that the Bill of Rights are absolute, and follow us, and protect us regardless of what state we are in.
Further more to use your position, we would have no protection from state laws beyond that state's supreme court.
With that said, I do believe the federal government has abused the commerce clause beyond what it was intended to be used for. For example its use to justify the "gun free school zone act". Was a major over reach.
But the use of the 14th, to insure that the states respect the Bill of Rights, in an appropriate use of federal power.

In closing I thing you would be better off opposing the over use of the commence clause. Because that is what the federal congress uses to usurp state's rights, rather then the 14th.