The Right Scoop
Love Dr. Carson, but I think he needs to better understand that more crime is committed in populated areas. I would think the likelihood is no greater per capita in more populated areas (perhaps even less), but the need for people to protect themselves from criminals in possession of this type of weapon is greater in these areas. Remember the saying "Don't go to a gunfight with a knife." Don't face a criminal with an AR15 with a two-round shotgun or a 5 round revolver.
Still I love and applaud this man and hope he at least has major influence in the next election. I've read his book, America the Beautiful, and wish it would be required reading in every school.
oh good god. What is with these supposedly "smart" people. How do we get from "right to keep and bear arms" to the question of semi automatic vs repeating vs single shot weapons? That question is not even relevant.
When the 2nd refers to "arms" it refers to "arms" that are the equivalent to those possessed by the military. If the military has them then you have a right to own them as well. The second amendment is all about keeping the argument of force available to the citizen when dealing with any tyranny imposed by their own government.
Good grief people. It may not be very pleasant to think that one of your responsibilities as a citizen is to take up arms against domestically imposed tyranny but that is exactly what the American Revolution was. And, to prosecute that war the people NEEDED to have access to the same or better weapons (ARMS!) used by the forces of what was then their own duly constituted government! (i.e. the British Crown).
Yes it is scary! Yes it can lead to an absolute horror! But it is the first half of the 2nd amendment that was supposed to address that aspect of things. "A WELL REGULATED militia being necessary for the security of a free state, ..." indicates that the appropriate action then was to keep the general militia well regulated and under observation, in order to curb excesses that could lead to horrors. The individual States were supposed to do this! They waffled on the deal. The states, and by extension the people of those states, failed in their duties to regulate the militia well.
That is where we are now with regards the 2nd amendment. The people have an untouchable* right to keep and bear arms, but the militia is unregulated, undisciplined, and there is no mechanism in place (anymore) to keep the militia from spinning completely out of control. This has produced the essential conflict in all this.
*Remember that there is a difference between having a right and being able to freely exercise that right. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual thing that can not be separated from you as a human being. However, main force can always be brought to bare to prohibit you from exercising that right. (Rightly or wrongly, this is the nature of "law"). That you have "a right" gives you the moral and political authority to use force to ensure that you may freely exercise that right. Hence the right to keep and bear arms enables the individual to protect the free exercise of their rights, by force, if need be.
Yes this is really disturbing stuff. But please remember that the folks that wrote the constitution actually did it. It was not just some academic exercise for them. They did it, with fire and sword, they did it.
The "right" grabs onto the first promising candidate they see and vets them later. Not good, and a recipe for disillusionment when they learn more about that candidate and his record, the same as was done with Dr Carson.
It is not spewing vitriol by saying that the 2nd amendment is not open to compromise. I reject any candidate who tries to compromise on our rights, period.
I'm not at all surprised.
Republicans are always inconsistent about something in their defence of liberty.
Just talk to any Republican for long enough, and eventually you'll find some statist views.
"Just talk to any Republican for long enough, and eventually you'll find some statist views."
Maybe that tells us how succesful the left has been with invading our values. You hear it enough and it is taken as truth after awhile.
We've got a job to do in educating people, including the "elite".
I think it was best summed up by Ayn Rand:
"Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as "conservatism".
Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it—while the “conservatives” are scurrying to ride on the enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It can’t be done."
I knew it.
There's no such thing as a perfect candidate. A few weeks ago, the right was all but on their knees worshipping this man.
Now? Let the vitriol spew!
The right does this time, after time, after time... First, they worship The. Next. Conservative. Saviour. Then, they crucify him/her. If the candidate in question doesn't give them a reason, they'll make one up, on the spot.
That said: What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand, Doc?
The "right" grabs onto the first promising candidate they see and vets them later. Not good, and a recipe for disillusionment when they learn more about that candidate and his record, the same as was done with Dr Carson.
It is not spewing vitriol by saying that the 2nd amendment is not open to compromise. I reject any candidate who tries to compromise on our rights, period.
What the heck! I loved this guy and thought finally someone coming on the scene that has so much common sense and morals, but then I hear him say the 2nd Amend. is location dependent and it's just all gone for me now, all the excitement I had about this guy rooting for us, is just gone!! The 2nd Amend. is NOT dependent on where you live, that is called control. So disappointed!!
I seem to recall that the Democrats pushed for a regional exemption to the 13th and 14th Amendments for some time as well.
One would that Dr. Benjamin Carson would be familiar with the likes of Bull Connor & Gov Ross Barnett.
The ONLY purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property. That means defend God Given Rights. I don't care how good and correct a politicians ideas are, it's a NO GO without including Rights as the MAIN purpose.
Maybe he was wincing because he didn't have the backbone to stand up strong and firm on gun rights?
Maybe he was wincing because he didn't have the backbone to stand up strong and firm on gun rights?
Ok, he's halfway there. I like everything else he believes. Local gov't should be the only deciding body on weapons stuff, if at all. Honestly, I believe we should be able to own tanks if we have the means and the desire, but oh well...
"Shall not be infringed." I didn't read anything about where you live being relevant in the Second Amendment.
WTF??? I can see recommending safe gun storage, and the like, but this position is nonsensical. Big oops!
That's definitely a big UH-OH!! The argument doesn't even make sense. Another case of the government deciding whether or not someone has the right to protect themselves. Where I live should not make any difference. What if I live in the country and move to the city, do I turn in my semi-automatic as I cross the line?
There goes another one.
He still could be valuable speaking to youth about responsibility, accountability, education, tax reform, etc. Should not hold public office but can do a great job with high school and college students on the above.
I liked just about everything he said at the prayer breakfast about the issues you list. I am just disappointed on his gun stance. But it didn't seem like he was convincing himself with his opinion. You could almost see him wince just a little as he said it.
Good point! My original thought when he was first doing Hannity, was whether or not he had seen the innocent children physically injured by drive-by shootings and how that might influence his thoughts on the 2nd Amendment. But I'm disappointed that he did not come out with a strong response on improving identification of and treatment for mental illness.
Ben Carson is clearly a Dual-Federalist. He believes Local Government should handle issues. What is so awful about that?
I think it's funny we keep on rejecting people from ourside and then we wonder why they betray us.
Yes, the local government should handle issues, as they were meant to do under the 10th amendment. But even THEY cannot infringe on our other rights clearly spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court ruled that DC cannot ban guns because of the 2nd Amendment. Even local government MUST obey the constitution of the land.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Constitution is not a local gov't issue, the Bill of Rights are God-given rights and for a man that speaks from the Bible to not comprehend that is a travesty.
CRAP! He sounds like he doesn't have a clue! OH well, I DID like him. He is a respectable man.....
.............NEXT!
I did a podcast about this man a few weeks ago telling people who were worshiping him as the next savior and who think he should run for president that they should proceed with caution. I got a lot of flack for it, however, I don't care. I believe that this is only the tip of the iceberg. I believe that if you continue to peel off the skin of the onion you will find that--while he's an accomplished surgeon and most likely a good man-- it's highly likely you will find a progressive at the center.
For those who are still going ga ga over this guy, please tell me why he couldn't tell Hannity who he voted for in 2008 & 2012? Why was that so hard for him to reveal? And he didn't and I think that he voted for Obama. And that revelation would be troubling.
If you haven't already please watch this video of an interview he did Patrick Henry College and especially pay attention to his comments at around the 27 min mark in the Q&A. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orY6M0Ex0BM&feature=youtu.be&t=26m26s
He makes a quick comment that you could almost miss if you're not paying attention. He thinks America should have another Constitutional Convention. I'm sorry, but that should worry anybody thinking this guy should run for president. A constitutional convention in this day and age would be a disaster. Some of his comments on Obama care are troubling as well. Most troubling is where he says he advised the White House not to push Obamacare all the way through at once. But rather, implement it little by little. I also want to share with you a comment from a listener of my show who is also skeptical of the Carson craze:
Where was Dr. Carson all the time when we were fighting the Affordable Care Act? In his interview with Hannity's Forum he said he would "rewrite" the Obamacare bill. Why? What would he change about it? Would there still be a mandate? No one asks. Are Republicans low info voters as well? How did Fox news put this forum together so quickly? Even The Blaze was right there, immediately after the Prayer Breakfast speech, with big kudos for Dr. Carson. And Frank Luntz ready to roll out a Fox Forum within days, that smells of Karl Rove to me; or take it further, David Axelrod, both? Are they ramping up to weaken up and coming viable Tea Party candidates? Who knows, but we better wise up fast. So I did some research:
in 2004 Dr. Carson was appointed by Pres GW Bush to serve on the President's Council of Bioethics; in 2006, the NAACP "bestowed upon him its highest honor, the Spingarn Medal" and Pres. Bush honored him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008 (photo on Breitbart for link to video above). Side note: In 2005, Pres Bush appointed Michael Leavitt to be HHS Secretary and we know that Leavitt is a govt health care guy (Exchanges), just under the moderate Republican banner. (http://www.hopkinschildrens.or/... I found this in-depth interview, days ago, of Dr. Carson by Marvin Olasky at Patrick Henry College and took notes:
The following are quotes from the interview and some of my conclusions based on Dr. Carson's comments:
1) "I would be the first one to admit we need health care reform"
2) Regarding fraud by medical practitioners "There would be some real teeth in the punishment..." (my problem w/this is we're depending on govt to be follow through on enforcing the law - formula for failure.)
3) "The amount of money we spend [on healthcare] is far more than adequate to make sure that everybody has good healthcare in this country."
4)Talking about phone calls from/with White House, talking to David Axelrod and Sr. Obama Administration officials about Obamacare: "some of the good things about it like lifetime limits and pre-existing diseases, I said these are things that I think everybody could agree about, that perhaps could be placed on the table for a vote, but don't just jam this gigantic thing through because it will alienate people.."
5) When Olasky asked Dr. Carson if he were "king of the forest"... what would be the basics of Dr. Carson's health care system, what are the basics...?
Dr. Carson's Answer:
1) Electronic records and billing;
2) Would make govt responsible for catastrophic health care and insurance companies only responsible for routine health care bc they hide behind the catastrophic thing to keep jacking up their rates...you could regulate them [insurance companies] just like you do utilities;
3) And, in terms of people who have no health care, I would basically set up a system similar to food stamps, where you give them electronic health accounts and it's replenished every month just like food stamps are, but now they would be incentive-ized not to blow it by going to the emergency room..."When asked about government having electronic health care records Dr. Carson says this regarding the intentions of the founding fathers for our government "No, I don't think making everybody's medical records available to the govt is good. The govt is big enough and intrusive enough as it is...It is absolutely critical, if the U.S. is to maintain itself as a free and prosperous nation, that the people be well-informed and that the people be active in government..." He goes on, so it's worth the time for Constitutional Conservatives and Libertarians to listen to the whole thing here and "You decide":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Carson's been a guest speaker at Liberty University where I see a lot of promoting of moderate Republican candidates by Mark DeMoss' PR firm (DeMoss has been a consultant to Romney since the 2008 campaign), to make them appear palatable to evangelical voters of which I'm one, but sadly, many evangelicals and Catholics are the low-info Republican voters influenced by these Big Religion cronies like Ralph Reed and Mark DeMoss.It's ironic to see that Dr. Carson wisely recommends that people get informed and at the same time, he's become a media sensation over a short speech. Some have read his books and know a lot about him, many of whom are libs, Donna Brazille, a few days ago, tweeted his quote and a link, but there are far too many who jump on board without doing some research into his background and positions first. They need to take his advice in that regard.It's safe to conclude, after viewing enough of Dr. Carson's speeches/interviews, that what he had to say was nothing new to Obama. Unfortunately, this makes the many tweets of joy by Conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians over one speech, look desperately foolish.
Great information! I had some of the same thoughts and have posted here my concern about him not disclosing on Hannity who he voted for. I too think it was Obama, because he is black and because of the Hope and Change.
Also, I want to be clear: I'm not hear to bash the man. I happen to think he's just going along with the 2016 fanfare to get money for he and his wife's education fund. Which I do not fault him for doing so. I would have to imagine that the website got swamped with donations in weeks since the prayer breakfast speech. I also thought it was a disgrace that hypocritical Dems to accuse him of using God to promote an agenda that's anti Obama. Yeah like the Dems never used God or religion when they want to push an agenda they have. granted the jury is still out if he's totally anti Obama. I happen to think that if he does run it will not be as a Republican or a Conservative. Most likely as an independent and don't be shocked if he's not already linked up with the fraud "No Labels Cuz We're Really Liberal" organization.
Thank you for sharing your additional insight! He has been raking in donations since that speech and the Hannity and other appearances. Education is a good thing as long as it isn't progressive indoctrination.
I agree with some things, but some I don't. I don't see any problem with what he said about putting things up for a vote and not jamming it through. If that was done, it wouldn't have passed!
BUT, I do agree that the man needs to say who he voted for and give a reason why. If he can't even answer that simple question, forget about it.
As for the forum that Hannity set up, I am very sure that they have a set of people they ask who would be interested in going in general whenever needed and Frank Luntz too.
Lastly, I do think he is a conservative that we should be happy is out there confronting Obama when the GOP won't. Doesn't mean I want him as President.
The bill wouldve went through whatever which way. The dems had the super-majority for the first two years of Obama's first term. I'm not sure I can take someone seriously who says that there are things in Obamacare that he likes and that we should keep. Mitt Romney said the same things. Look how that worked out for us.
Scoop, I am disappointed that you cherry picked the interview. Why not post the whole interview than simply look for something to impale the man? Post the whole interview and then let the people truly decide if Dr. Carson is truly unacceptable. I will say this, there is video on Carson's first pray breakfast talk with Bill Clinton present at the time and it was excellent. This man has very strong, core, conservative beliefs and articulates them better than anyone I have heard who is running for president in 2016. This man would be a Godsend for our nation and the conservative movement but all you can do is try to tear the man down once he says something that is not 100% to your liking. It makes me not question him, but you RightScoop and your true agenda. Are you trying to promote effective conservatism or are you pushing the party to the extreme, which would make us unelectable?
How is Scoop making anything more 'far right', when he's talking about our RIGHTS? In no way does he bash the man.
The implication in the title is that now Dr. Carson is someone to be looked askance about his conservatism. Dr. Carson is very conservative and zeroing on one thing he said, when he did say he supports the 2nd Amendment. His view on guns in the urban setting actually sheds some light as to why some people favor gun control vs those who don't. So, it isn't bashing, but it is jumping the gun and I think that it's ridiculous especially since Dr. Carson has articulated so well concerning conservative issues. Release the whole interview and then we will have a context. A snippet defining Carson, I think is unfair.
Steven is a typical RINO who trolls around various threads touting his faves for 2016, even though 2016 is a far, far ways off to be even be thinking about right now. Of course, such folks accuse others of bashing and trying to cause division because we're simply vetting whatever flavor of the month they choose. Yet, guys like Steven have no problem bashing good conservatives and known commodities like Sarah Palin who have done A LOT MORE for the grassroots conservative movement and for the republican party. Don't believe me? When you see such folk in these threads it's always good to check their disqus comment history. This was from Steven is a disgrace. My comments to his diatribe on another website are in ():
"Let's face it, Sarah Palin is done. Her time came and went. She blew it when she resigned as governor and didn't follow up by running for the GOP nomination. (that is something only fake conservative and liberals say about her. its cheap and many of us know the real reason she resigned)
She squandered whatever political capital she had by going after being a celebrity and making her millions. (again typical leftist or GOP establishment comment against her) The choice was hers through and through, but now she has painted herself in a corner and frankly she will never rise to the level John McCain put her in 2008. It's time for the bitter clinging Palinistas to let go. I am sad to say it, but it has to be said because it was always there in front of us.
To be honest I let go as a Palinista when she decided not to run in 2012, though I should have let go when she resigned the governorship. I knew that that move was ridiculous, but for whatever reason I just wanted to believe she had something up her sleeve and that she would outsmart the Left and the elites yet! Boy, that was foolish! Fundamentals are what they are. You can't defy gravity for long and in politics, Palin couldn't continue to do the things she and her family were doing the past few years and still come out smelling like roses! (disgruntled fan boy of Palin, now applies his fan boy mentality to other flavors of the month. Palinistas are not fan boys. we're supporters and we believe in Sarah Palin her record, her convictions and her ability to galvanize the grassroots for the conservative cause)
When FOX doesn't want to have anything to do with you, then you know that your prominent spot on the conservative pecking order has diminished. (Again, such a comment you'd see at the Daily Kos. It's a known fact that FOX never disputed Palin's claim that she turned down a contract) I wish Palin good luck in her private life (yeah Ok.) and if she has political aspiration again, she will have to regain the trust of Alaskans again, (Why? BTW, in many Senate race polls in Alaska, Palin is either in a dead heat or just a little above other candidates and she's not even in the race. So I guess gaining the trust of the Alaskan is already happening. But I'm sure the trust she has to gain--according to you-- is with those dirtbag ethics whores who forced her out of office?) but I doubt they'll give her another chance. Sad day, especially because she is one of the few genuine articles in politics. But the country will get on and there are others who can lead and I am sure she'll be there to support them in the future. I just hope now people will stop wasting their lives in hope that Palin will somehow become president of the United States. Ha! She'll be lucky to ever be Mayor of Wasilla again!"
(The last sentence is really all you need to know about this putz loser. Steve, you have crossed over to the dark side. Seek help)
Well, if more states do the crazy things that New York has just done with their new illegal gun laws, then this will all be irrelevant soon. People are going to have to take a stand and say if they are for the Second Amendment or not. You can't modify it or take only "some" of it away, just like you can't modify or take some of the First Amendment away. These are OUR rights as handed down from our Founding Fathers and the same rights that Americans for generations have defended with their lives. NOBODY has a right to just give them away. Nobody.
Well NY is in for a treat. Their State Supreme Court has required they show the rushed law is constitutional. This is a change, generally people have to prove it is unconstitutional.
This is why we are the stupid party. We tear each other down, just because a person is not 100% on our side. It's a throwaway issue for this man. Obviously, he is not familiar with guns and his experience with guns has been in the urban setting where guns have been use predominantly in a violent way. In the rural areas, people's experience guns differently and so can see the usefulness of guns easier than someone from an urban setting. For goodness sake, he has lived in an urban setting his entire life being a surgeon at the top hospital in the nation! Cut the man some slack and understand that he is light years better than what we have in the White House today.
I seriously doubt Dr. Carson sets this as his number one issue and highly seriously doubt he would seek legislation to control guns. That's what the Left does. One thing you will be sure of with Carson is that he will nominate the most conservative Supreme court justices and he will focus like a laser on the issues he spoke about at the pray breakfast. That's where his passion is and that's what the nation needs right now is commonsense fiscal policies and better solutions to raise our level of education. All the rest are peripheral issues that the Left distracts (yes that includes Glenn Beck) to tear us apart and keep the growth of government and the erosion of our freedoms going.
We need to get wiser about what the most important issues really are and who is on our side that can really solve these issues, or we won't stand a chance! Stop dividing yourselves conservatives and rally around a candidate so that we can turn this nation around! Dr. Carson would be an excellent choice (if he chooses to run) along with Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, or Rick Perry. Just choose one! None are pure, but they are awfully better than Obama or Christie! And speaking of Christie, I will support him over Hillary all day. We swallowed our pride and voted Romney in the end, it will be no different if Christie emerges. Given how puritanical conservative voters on this thread are, it is very likely you all will be divided and Christie will get the nomination.
The 2nd amendment is not a "throw-away" issue. I'm sorry Dr. Carson can't consider this important enough to bother with. He has "lived in an urban setting" all his life but should be smart enough to figure things out anyway.
The nation needs first of all loyalthy to the Constitution. A candidate who is squishy about that is not the right one. Nearly ALL of our economic and educational problems would be more easily resolved if government got out of the way and allowed free men to handle it in a common sense manner. The federal government is not staying within the bounds spelled out by our Constitution...therein is the problem.
The economy is not our main problem. Neither is education. The departure from constitutionally limited powers IS the main problem.
Sorry, but I meant throwaway in the sense that it's not at the top of his agenda. When you think about Dr. Carson, do you think 2nd amendment? So, why crucify the guy if he doesn't recite the exact beliefs you may have on the 2nd amendment? It doesn't make Dr. Carson suddenly a RINO because he expressed his opinion where he is very likely out of his depth. I cut him slack here, because I know base on his writings, his speeches and interviews he is a very conservative man and I would surely bet that he is not going to be a danger to any constitutional right much less the second amendment! On the contrary, he is the exact type of person we need in Washington to restore the freedoms and liberties we have lost, especially in health care, education and regulations. His thoughts on these areas are indeed what is most pressing right now and focusing on a snippet of an entire interview is to me ridiculous.
You are either for the God-given rights in the constitution and Bill of Rights or you are not. Once you start "modifying" it, you've given the whole idea a death sentence. That is not just a "belief", it is what happens with government.
No, we do not need anyone in Washington who does not uphold these rights as spelled out in writing, no "compromise" on that, and no cutting some slack for him if he is "out of his depth" there. It isn't hard to understand...what "depth" do you need to understand it?
IMO, if it is NOT at the top of his agenda, it should be. I would not vote for him based on that snippet from an interview.
Oh simple vetting of someone who is being blindly worshiped is now bashing? I'm sorry but I'm not a sheep. I'm not like a democrat just going on with the herd. You need help. Notice how he leaves Palin out of his list of those who meet his approval. See, people like you don't get it. The reason we got Obama is because of a spend thrift Republican grew our national debt and created a climate in this country for a nobody like Obama to rise. I no longer want the conservative movement getting blame for spendthrift big government RINO republicans. No I would not vote for Christie because of fear of Hillary. I'm not buying that nonsense anymore.
Who is blindly worshiping Dr. Carson or anyone for that matter? Funny coming from someone who has to mention Sarah Palin at every turn (she's done). I do get it, but I am not foolish to think that if we are going to get all bent out of shape about a snippet from Dr. Carson, after he has written books, he has given so many speeches, and interviews over the years, that we are not marginalizing ourselves. It's maddening to me that conservatives continue to find reasons not to coalesce behind someone while moderates and liberal republicans always do and win! That's my point! Our attitude has to change otherwise we will wind up with Christie in 2016. The moderates know their candidate already. We conservatives better get our candidate too, ahead of time or else we will have to swallow again and vote for someone we really don't want. With that said, I would still vote for Christie over Hillary all day. We can't afford another 4 years of socialism in this country.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.