Cain is one of a few Republican hopefuls who have taken a strong stand on issues that are important to political conservatives. But where does he stand on the Second Amendment? Some of the top contenders (such as Rick Perry and Ron Paul) have pro-gun records to run on. Others (such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich) have very mixed or anti-gun records in their haunted past. But Cain has no legislative record. We have no history in public office by which to judge him -- which is why it’s so important that GOA gets an answer back from him on Otherwise, we only have bits and pieces of speeches and interviews that Cain has engaged in. And while those statements help somewhat, they also raise more questions than they answer. For example, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this year, Cain expressed strong support for gun rights: “I support, strongly support, the Second 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 Second Amendment.” But in answer to a follow-up question asking whether states or local governments should be allowed to impose gun control restrictions, Cain said, “Yes. The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.” That’s an answer that needs further explanation, especially given the fact that almost one year earlier to the day, the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that states and localities were limited with respect to interfering with a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. Now, to be fair, it could be that Cain is thinking: As President, it’s none of my business what the states do on guns or any other issue. A true constitutionalist (unlike the current President) would understand that the federal government has limited powers and is restricted to exercising the 17 or 18 powers that are spelled out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Moreover, a true constitutionalist would understand that the states -- as James Madison said -- have “plenary powers” to try different approaches. As goes the cliché: the states are separate “laboratories” for public policy experiments. Cain’s statement about state gun control does raise some important questions though:
We don’t have answers to these questions, and that’s why ACTION: Please contact the Cain campaign and urge him to return ----- Pre-written letter to Herman Cain ----- Dear Mr. Cain: Congratulations on your rise to the top of the Republican field. According to Zogby, you now lead in the polls. I know that you have taken some strong constitutional stands in general. However, I would like to know where you stand on the Second Amendment in particular. I know that you have made some positive statements on firearms, but there have been other comments which have caused concern. Gun Owners of America tells me they have sent you a Presidential Survey, but that you have not yet returned it. Their survey asks about issues that are very important to me including concealed carry recognition, the renewal of the semi-auto ban and repealing gun restrictions (like the Brady law and various import bans). Would you please return Sincerely, | |||||
The sporadic musings of a middle aged man who isn't exactly happy with the direction America is taking today....
The thing about 'states rights' is that states can impose more harsh restrictions than the fed, so making gun ownership a states issue is problematic at the least. Therefore, the Constitution must be the supreme law, not stripped of its powers to control runaway government, especially at state level.
ReplyDeleteSoon as Cain made his statement about states being allowed control over a citizen's rights to the 2A- or any of them- he lost my vote due to being wishy-washy in his convictions.
However, further thinking on his 'candidacy', I've come to the conclusion that those uppity blacks we have now with the OTurd in office will become even more uppity if we elect another black to the Oval Office. Too, I seriously doubt Cain- or any black can separate themselves from their color and not enact more affirmative action laws.
Call me a racist if you want- I admit I've really become one since all the shit that's been pulled since the '08 election, beginning with the 'no whites need apply' jobs bill he passed immediately upon entering office.
Still, my opinion on Cain is simply this: "People will vote for him just to prove they aren't racist, just as they've been accused with not voting for the Turd."
I don't know the answer, Jim. I'm almost to the point of saying "anyone but Romney".
ReplyDeleteI hope Cain returns the survey. I'd like to know where he stands on the 2nd, as well as all of the BOR and the Constitution in general.
In my blacker stages I believe that it doesn't really matter, the die is cast, what will be, will be....
Shy - so you believe that the Fedral government has the right to use force to get it's way. No where in The US Constitution is stated the Feds have a right and obligation to impose The Bill of Rights on the state.
ReplyDeleteWhy is every time the States do something we don't like, instead of working to change the law at the states level. We turn to the Feds to expend their power and negate state rights.
It's your job, my job every bodies to protect our rights. As soon as we rely on the government to protect our rights we give the the authority to restrict them and take them away.
Let's quit whining to The Federal Government and work within our states to insure our rights.
Hmmm... I will be sending the letter as I am interested, but it's not up to the President, but up to us to insure our rights.
I would like one that I don't disagree with, and that's where my vote comes in. I am hope as his first response was to fall back on States Rights.
My 2 cents,
Josh
There are no such things as States Rights. They are Powers, as outlined in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'
P.S. I wonder what everyone's thought on 'McDonald v. Chicago' would of been if it had gone the others way? Or, if in ten years it's over turned.
ReplyDeleteHmmm.....
And the expansion The Federal Governments power marches on. This was the whole reason they had to put in the 10th Amendment. Powers, rights same difference.
ReplyDeleteA right is a power you have. When we call it a right we are saying you are justified in using it. When we talk about the powers of the states or Fedral governments, we our talking about *their* as legal entities, like corporations, rights and responsibilities.
Powers = rights + responsibilities
Sorry Blue this probably should of been a post on my blog.
And I probably will make it one.
Josh
Sorry corrections.
ReplyDeleteOur = are sigh.
Rights = powers + responsibilities.
"Sorry Blue this probably should of been a post on my blog."
ReplyDelete~~~
Nothing to be sorry about, Josh. :)