Saturday, April 11, 2015

Dr. Ben Carson - More Humor on the Second Amendment

Dr. Ben Carson
Dr. Ben Carson


On April 10 2015, I had the opportunity to talk with GOP Presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson about guns and gun rights, and he told us that the Second Amendment keeps the government from dominating the people.
Carson talked about the importance of the Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment is incredibly important for a couple of reasons. Number one, our Founders felt that our nation, if ever invaded by outside forces, would be much stronger if the people could help repel those forces. Number two, and perhaps even more importantly, is if the government–our own government–ever became tyrannical, and wanted to dominate the people, the Second Amendment guarantees the people the means whereby to defend themselves.


33 comments:

  1. They really are foisting this guy on us. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Our own government-ever became tyrannical...

    Where the hell did that ever come from? It's so patently ridiculous. Here is another point-of-view. Whether or not it is more accurate, I leave to the reader. This is culled from the web. Not my original thought.

    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment in America was to ensure that state militias continued to have the power to tyrannize slaves, to suppress their rebellions with lethal force, and to suppress any other rebellions they felt went against their "rights" to tyrannize others.

    It was put in place to do pretty much the opposite of what gun nuts claim today. It was put there to enable governmental suppression of slave rebellions, first and foremost -- not to protect the rights of those who wanted to rebel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FJ, can you send me a link to that fascinating quote. I'd like to make a post out of it - surely it'll generate an interesting discussion.

      Delete
    2. Hi Mike,

      Che Pasa has given me permission to repost his writing in the past. The quote is in the comments section. The post itself is quite worthy as well, suggesting that the second amendment was derived from the gun rights provision of the English Bill of Rights from 1689. You might consider asking his permission. He would probably say it is okay. Politically he is a little bit to the left of you or I. The idea of the post is that the second amendment gives the gun owner the liberty to impose his authority on others.

      http://chewhatyoucallyourpasa.blogspot.com/2013/02/liberty-for-whom-to-do-what.html

      Delete
  3. Inexplicable Ben Carson hate can only mean one thing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How about Rand Paul for president with John Kerry as VP? (Undeclared running mate.) A democratic congress and a bright future for all? Is anybody listening? Screw the Pentagon. Make it official. War is obsolete. We made a lot of progress with Obama. Let's not just throw it all away!

    Ben Carson means nothing. No reason to hate him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Screw the Pentagon. Make it official. War is obsolete."

      An interesting concept considering the goings on in the world today. Are you suggesting the US adopt a strict nonintervention policy? Or are we talking philosophically?

      Delete
    2. Just a fantasy. Just like when Ron Paul used to say it. Maybe we can go back to a policy like that of T. Roosevelt or Reagan. You know, like get out of the business of actually starting wars. The last two, initiated by the U.S.A., didn't really bring about the desired results.

      Delete
    3. That I can agree with FJ. Though in the current political climate, for all the trashing of American imperialism by other countries, the expectation for us to "do something" seems to rear its head when a crisis appears. In fact, I recall recently hearing someone from the World Health Organization complaining that the U.S. Military wasn't taking a more active role in responding to the Ebola outbreak because the one thing our military excels at is short notice logistics.
      Trying to change into a policy would result in some grief for whatever administration is in charge due to changing the status quo to becoming non-interventionist. Though in the long run, I think it would be positive move for our country.

      Delete
  5. Sorry I'm late to join the discussion today, doing the army thing this weekend and actually getting to train in the field a bit. I honestly haven't paid any attention to the speakers at the NRA convention for the simple reason that there wont be anything more than potential candidates attempting to out-Second Amendment each other. Not any different than a big pro-choice rally. There was one thing I noticed that the good Doctor got wrong,

    "So, if the source that is trying to dominate you has those weapons, but you don’t have them–if all you have are pea-shooters–then your defense of yourself is not going to be very effective."

    In actuality, even with semi-automatic rifles being owned by citizen, there isn't a true parity in regards to weapons technology. Individual citizens are pretty much limited to semi-automatic firearms, and the government isn't.
    And we seem to regularly be reminded that resistance is futile from Laci-Locutus, a Borg,

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/09/so-you-really-want-to-take-on-us.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, you're in agreement that all the talk about preventing or fighting against a tyrannical government is silly?

      Delete
    2. "So, you're in agreement that all the talk about preventing or fighting against a tyrannical government is silly?"

      Of course not Mike. The best current example of insurgencies being able to hold out against government forces is Afghanistan. And of course Iraq hasn't turned out quite as planned either.
      But the insurgency in Afghanistan has survived the attentions of two nuclear capable governments.

      Delete
    3. The Constitution gives you the right to guns, nowhere does it say the people must have weapons superior to the government, nor is the 2nd A without limitations. Why is your line that government has superior firepower? Isn't that why we pay taxes for our military to be the best in the world? Obviously you are just another conspiracy theorist who believes the government will confiscate our guns at the point of government guns.

      Delete
    4. "The Constitution gives you the right to guns, nowhere does it say the people must have weapons superior to the government, nor is the 2nd A without limitations. Why is your line that government has superior firepower? Isn't that why we pay taxes for our military to be the best in the world?"

      Hi Sammy, long time no see. As I said earlier, this is something Dr. Carson is incorrect on. There have been periods of time during which civilian arms were superior to military issue arms, though the military worked hard to play catch-up.
      The military is only limited for the most part by the Geneva-Hague conventions, and nations tend to push the envelope with those rules also. American citizens are generally limited by federal law which severely restricts the ownership of selective fire weapons among other things.
      Though I'm willing to debate whether a selective fire weapon is more dangerous than semiautomatic for an individual weapon, that is the perception. And, as I cited, Laci loves to show off the high tech videos.
      So American citizens don't reality have parity with the government in the ownership of weapons. And apparently, even semiautomatic firearms make the powers that be nervous.
      You are correct in that the Second Amendment isn't without restrictions. There are already plenty of restrictions on the books. And we have the courts to help insure that these restrictions pass Constitutional muster, as we've seen with Heller, etc.
      Of course, in recent years, gun laws have been moving in the direction of more freedoms rather than less.

      Delete
    5. "Of course not Mike. The best current example of insurgencies being able to hold out against government forces is Afghanistan"

      I'm sorry to hear you say that. It sounds more like the mindless nonsense we get from Kurt and TS than your usual reasonable observations.

      When 2nd Amendment Zealots claim what Dr. Carson claimed, they're not talking about holding off the advances of a government from thousands of miles away. They're talking about holding off their own government, and it's the US government we're talking about, which has more military might than all the others combined. The claim is so ridiculous that it's not comparable to what happened in Afghanistan at all. It's more like schoolchildren armed with sling shots fighting men with real guns.

      In addition to the bizarre impossibility of the claim, the fact that it's never going to happen makes it even sillier. The US government has already taken away your rights in so many areas, about which all your guns have been useless. All they'd need to do is continue the same to whatever extreme point they want. You are powerless.

      Delete
    6. Mike, in the discussion I posted, I gave my reasoning why I think government oppression rising to the level of requiring an insurgency is unlikely. That being said, that isn't a reason to forbid citizens the rights to own arms as allowed by the Constitution. In fact, you even said I was reasonable in the cited discussion.
      Let me repeat the pertinent comment,

      "ssgmarkcrSeptember 29, 2014 at 12:05 AM
      "Thanks, ss, for once again showing that you're the reasonable one."

      "That's what Laci's post is all about, as I see it. When gun-rights folks talk about fighting off government tyranny they're living in a fantasy world of their own invention."

      Mike, I don't think I'm as reasonable as you're hoping. My belief is that Laci was doing the usual trotting out of hardware to somehow psychologically cow those that believe the personal ownership of arms helps in some way to keep a government in check.
      I believe that ALL of the things I mentioned help keep our government from misbehaving to the point where rebellion would be necessary. That includes ALL of the amendments in the Constitution, including that pesky Second Amendment.
      A rebellion such as the one you believe is being fantasized by the "right wing extremists" would truly be a horrible thing, I have seen it up close. But I don't believe its likely. About as likely as say, the US engaging in a war using nuclear weapons.
      And guess what, I seem to be sitting just over 200 miles from 150 nuclear weapons. Engaging in a nuclear war would likely be as disastrous for our country as a full up rebellion, yet we still seem to be ready for it."

      I haven't seen anything change since this comment of mine to change my opinion. I am curious as to how, while my opinion hasn't changed, I've somehow become unreasonable.

      Delete
    7. Of course in recent years the number killed, or injured by gun shot has sky rocked.
      Please explain why citizens should have firepower parity with the government.
      Citizens aren't expected to fend off mass military attacks, that's why we have a well regulated military, which made the militia obsolete.

      Delete
    8. "Please explain why citizens should have firepower parity with the government."

      As I've said here several times here already Sammy, citizens haven't had parity in regards to firearms for quite a while. Laci likes to trot out the high tech video highlighting this lack of parity. However, for some reason, even allowing the common citizen to own semiautomatic forearms seems to make those in the gun control lobby nervous.
      Sort of bewildering since even Everytown has had to admit that these firearms are used quite rarely in violent acts.



      Delete
    9. "Of course in recent years the number killed, or injured by gun shot has sky rocked."

      No, the total deaths has been pretty steady- though the population has grown. A small increase in suicide rates has offset the drop in murder rate we've seen.

      Delete
    10. "As I've said here several times here already Sammy, citizens haven't had parity in regards to firearms for quite a while."
      Which doesn't answer my question, why should the public have gun parity with the government?

      Delete
    11. "Which doesn't answer my question, why should the public have gun parity with the government?"

      Well Sammy, that's completely up to the public to decide that in accordance with the legislative process and the protections of the Constitution. So the level of parity is determined by them.

      Delete
    12. Which doesn't answer my question, why should the public have gun parity with the government?

      I don't presume to speak for SSG, but for me, the simple answer to that question is that it should be no more difficult for we the people to kill the government's hired muscle than it is for them to kill us.

      Delete
    13. I'm personally quite happy with my current evil rifles, though none of them are selective fire. I have a hard enough time feeding them in semi-automatic mode. Fully automatic rifles aren't really that efficient until you get one heavy enough to aid in controlling the recoil.
      As for the bigger stuff that Laci delights in posting here, its not that big of an attraction to me just looking at them from the maintenance and expense side. Tracked vehicles are real maintenance hogs. You could likely fashion a poor man's Apache by stealing a news chopper since they are starting to be equipped with modern night vision.
      But for some reason, even with all of the technological advantages of a large standing military, there still seems to be a concern for light infantry arms which are limited to semi-auto only.
      In fact, I would argue that those gee whiz items like a grid zone eliminator actually works to the benefit of insurgents. I believe I've posted the most recent counterinsurgency manual in the past.
      For a real life example of this, one has but to look to Pakistan to see the populace gushing with support for our use of such technological marvels.

      Delete
    14. When 2nd Amendment Zealots claim what Dr. Carson claimed, they're not talking about holding off the advances of a government from thousands of miles away.

      So what? Are you arguing that the failure on the part of the U.S. (and much of NATO) to "pacify" Iraq and Afghanistan is a matter of logistics? That the insurgencies would have been crushed, if not for the difficulties of keeping the troops supplied from across oceans? That would certainly be an . . . unusual argument.

      They're talking about holding off their own government, and it's the US government we're talking about, which has more military might than all the others combined.

      You are of course correct that the insurgents in those countries face a much different situation than domestic freedom fighters would. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. all lack the advantage of being easily able to put troops in light mortar/light rocket range of both military and civilian leadership of the U.S. government.

      Even so, they're doing alright.

      Delete
    15. ""Of course not Mike. The best current example of insurgencies being able to hold out against government forces is Afghanistan""

      Sorry, ss,, but that's a totally unreasonable and ridiculous remark and I explained why.

      Delete
    16. Sorry, ss,, but that's a totally unreasonable and ridiculous remark and I explained why.

      And I explained why there is nothing "unreasonable" or "ridiculous" about SSG's, comment.

      Delete
  6. Carson made all the right noises here, correctly noting the Second Amendment's vital role in protecting the people's means to thwarting tyranny and genocide, but given his misstep after misstep in the past, how seriously can he be taken now?

    I'm not so naïve as to expect politicians to mean what they say, but, hell, can't they at least make some effort to be convincing with their subterfuge?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Three links about the same thing - I get it, Kurt. He's definitely not fanatical or extreme enough for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Three links about the same thing . . .

      Three links about three separate incidents of Carson articulating his extremist and fanatical willingness to compromise with regard to infringements on that which shall not be infringed.

      Delete
    2. I just scanned your links, but it sure seemed you used the same quote in each. Maybe I was wrong.

      Delete
    3. I just scanned your links . . .

      Obviously. The second and third articles referenced the first, as background.

      Delete