PDA

View Full Version : Ben Carson: 2nd Amendment Needed In Case Gov’t Goes ‘Off The Rail’



Cebu_4_2
6th November 2014, 05:30 PM
Ben Carson: 2nd Amendment Needed In Case Gov’t Goes ‘Off The Rail’
May 27, 2014 - 4:03 PM


http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium/images/ben-carson_2.jpg (http://cnsnews.com/image/ben-carson-2nd-amendment-it-s-there-case-gov-t-goes-rail-people-need-mechanism-defense)Dr. Ben Carson. (AP)

(CNSNews.com) – Dr. Ben Carson, author and retired pediatric neurosurgeon, said the “real reason” the Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment was because they knew it was possible for our government to “go off the rail” and try to “dominate the people” and the citizens would need the means to protect themselves.


“But the real reason that they put it [2nd Amendment] there is recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves,” said Carson. “I would never allow the Second Amendment to be jeopardized.”

Carson made his comments on May 23 as the guest host on the conservative talk radio program, the Sean Hannity Show. A caller had asked Carson for his views on the Second Amendment and how that constitutional right was being treated by the Obama administration.

The caller said, “I’ve heard some conflicting things from people and I’m curious what your thoughts are on the Second Amendment and what this administration is doing to gut it, right now?”

Dr. Carson said, “Well, it’s always good to hear it from the horse’s mouth. First of all, I am a very strong believer in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there for a very good reason, and I think our Founding Fathers were very wise to recognize that the populace could be a tremendous aid to the military. They could form their own militia; they would be a tremendous deterrent for invasion.”

http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium/images/gun_1.jpg (http://cnsnews.com/image/irs-agents-accidentally-discharged-guns-11-times-possible-property-damage-or-personal-injury)(AP Photo)

“But the real reason that they put it there is recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves,” he said. “I would never allow the Second Amendment to be jeopardized.”

“I do believe that it is necessary for people to begin to have rational discussions about things – what kinds of weapons,” said Carson. “You know, I don’t think tanks, for instance, would be a very good thing to be keeping in your garage. But you certainly should have access to any kind of weapon that you want for recreational purposes or to protect yourself. There really shouldn’t be a lot of restrictions on that.”

He continued, “You do need to have a discussion about how we deal with situations where there is a tremendous amount of crime and easy access to the kinds of weapons that can create a lot of damage quickly. But that needs to be done in context of always preserving Second Amendment rights.”

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Carson, author of One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America's Future (http://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-What-Americas-Future-ebook/dp/B00G3L7VH0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401225266&sr=8-1&keywords=one+nation), is a retired pediatric neurosurgeon from Johns Hopkins Hospital and a recipient of the 2008 Presidential Medal of Freedom. He is married and has three sons.

crimethink
6th November 2014, 05:33 PM
The government is definitely off the rails.

General of Darkness
6th November 2014, 05:41 PM
He's sent mixed messages concerning 2A.

crimethink
6th November 2014, 06:09 PM
He's sent mixed messages concerning 2A.

A double-talking Nigger? How racist of you! LOL

mick silver
7th November 2014, 05:10 AM
I take about 99% of what I read from them to be false . a gain of salt

palani
7th November 2014, 05:23 AM
The 2nd amendment concerns regulating militia. Firearms do not regulate militia. The right to a firearm is a natural right to defend oneself and is beyond the scope of congress to regulate.

Many laws are derived from the feudal age. Arms in the feudal system were considered coats of arms, flags and seals. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees. The right to a coat of arms. The right to a flag. And the right to use a seal. These things regulate militia.

Placing firearms in the constitution as a 'protected right' simply means congress can amend this right whenever they choose. The right to self defense cannot be regulated.

Here is Bouviers definition of ARM


ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another.

Here is what Bouvier has to say of ARMS


ARMS, heraldry. Signs of arms, or drawings painted on shields, banners, and
the like. The arms of the United States are described in the Resolution of Congress, of June 20, 1782. Vide Seal of the United States.

The ARMS of the United States include the GREAT SEAL.

The ARMS of the United States is what I directed my Secretary of State at Washington City to place on my travel documents.

midnight rambler
7th November 2014, 06:22 AM
The government is definitely off the rails.

Right, the phrase is 'coming off the railS' like a train coming off the railS.

crimethink
7th November 2014, 10:15 AM
Arms in the feudal system were considered coats of arms, flags and seals. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees. The right to a coat of arms. The right to a flag. And the right to use a seal. These things regulate militia.

This is in direct contradiction to what the Founders - the authors of the Second Amendment - said.

Believe them, or believe you...dilemma...LOL.

crimethink
7th November 2014, 10:23 AM
Right, the phrase is 'coming off the railS' like a train coming off the railS.

Ben Carson is the Republican version of the Magic Negro. If he were to be elected to the White House, he would be almost as empty as Obama, on par with George Dumbya Bush. I do not have evidence yet to assess whether his "brilliance in neurosurgery" is factual or mythical. However, he's said enough politically that indicates he doesn't think things through, routinely.

palani
7th November 2014, 12:19 PM
This is in direct contradiction to what the Founders - the authors of the Second Amendment - said.

Believe them, or believe you...dilemma...LOL.

I care not whether you believe me or not. The 'founders' were lawyers for the most part.

A large part of controlling your own life is to control the words that are directed at you. If you cannot do this adequately you turn over that control. Words mean what I say they mean. No more and no less.

You see where thinking within the box has gotten you. You must be satisfied with the method because you refuse to do anything that involves thinking outside the box.

gunDriller
7th November 2014, 01:51 PM
he SOUNDS good.

does he carry water for Israhell ?

crimethink
7th November 2014, 04:37 PM
Words mean what I say they mean.

Who can argue with that? LOL

crimethink
7th November 2014, 04:40 PM
he SOUNDS good.

does he carry water for Israhell ?

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/dr-ben-carson-says-america-must-defend-israel-dont-abandon-little-brother/

Pretend "Israel" is "America's little brother."

palani
7th November 2014, 04:45 PM
Who can argue with that? LOL

You must not be a bible believer. These do not argue. They agree all the time. Arguing is synonymous with babble. One comes to expect that of a heathen.

crimethink
8th November 2014, 12:27 AM
You must not be a bible believer. These do not argue. They agree all the time. Arguing is synonymous with babble. One comes to expect that of a heathen.

The Bible mentions people like you. "Pharisees." Experts at what we now call sophistry & doubletalk.

palani
8th November 2014, 04:49 AM
The Bible mentions people like you. "Pharisees." Experts at what we now call sophistry & doubletalk.
Because I define words to suit my own purposes somehow gives you the authority to insult and argue?

My words and definitions of these words do have authority yet the range of that authority is only the distance from me that another may hear them.

This is similar to the territorial jurisdiction of Texas ... their penal code 1.04(d)


This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.

You are out of range.

crimethink
8th November 2014, 12:27 PM
Because I define words to suit my own purposes

Words have their own meanings.

We have words for those who think they can redefine the meanings of words to "suit their own purposes": "nuts" or "hypocrites."

palani
8th November 2014, 01:05 PM
Words have their own meanings.
Really? And I guess when you were born you actually knew all these meanings?


We have words for those who think they can redefine the meanings of words to "suit their own purposes": "nuts" or "hypocrites."

We? You have a mouse in your pocket?

William Jefferson Clinton has a problem with the word "is". This word comprises two letters. But then you, being a graduate of Public School 101, have no problem understanding the meaning of any word or sentence. Do you understand how conceited that makes you appear?

Uncle Salty
8th November 2014, 05:21 PM
The 2nd amendment concerns regulating militia. Firearms do not regulate militia. The right to a firearm is a natural right to defend oneself and is beyond the scope of congress to regulate.

Many laws are derived from the feudal age. Arms in the feudal system were considered coats of arms, flags and seals. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees. The right to a coat of arms. The right to a flag. And the right to use a seal. These things regulate militia.

You misuse the definition of both arms and regulate. Just try to find a way to get 'bear' (Black, Brown, Grizzly, and Polar) into your Second Amendment and you will have hit the retard trifecta.

palani
8th November 2014, 06:24 PM
You misuse the definition of both arms and regulate. Just try to find a way to get 'bear' (Black, Brown, Grizzly, and Polar) into your Second Amendment and you will have hit the retard trifecta.
Here is the link to a book on the subject of THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. See if you can find firearms or regulating anywhere in it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CcQrAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=arms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IW4pUZGrOsqW2QWCroHICQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=arms&f=false


http://i50.tinypic.com/v6oi2w.jpg

By the way .. should you go to the search engine for GOOGLE BOOKS and put the title in you won't find this book. Now why do you suppose that is?

crimethink
8th November 2014, 07:27 PM
By the way .. should you go to the search engine for GOOGLE BOOKS and put the title in you won't find this book. Now why do you suppose that is?

Because "the right to bear arms" refers to the right to bear firearms 999,999 out of 1,000,000 instances.

So much for Google "suppressing" the book:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22arthur+charles+fox-davies%22+arms&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

palani
9th November 2014, 03:46 AM
Because "the right to bear arms" refers to the right to bear firearms 999,999 out of 1,000,000 instances. Is it my fault that 999,999 out of 1,000,000 people have got it all WRONG?


So much for Google "suppressing" the book:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22arthur+charles+fox-davies%22+arms&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
You cannot be that dense. Look for the google link to their free book ... the 1906 edition. That is their link I posted previously but it never shows up in any search. Not even in your search.

palani
9th November 2014, 06:21 AM
On a battle field you don't stop everyone you meet and ask for their identity. ARMS are the identity card for the battle field.

http://i59.tinypic.com/211mq0w.jpg

gunDriller
9th November 2014, 06:48 AM
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/dr-ben-carson-says-america-must-defend-israel-dont-abandon-little-brother/

Pretend "Israel" is "America's little brother."

if you had a little brother who destroyed 2 enormous houses and killed 3000+ other family members - would you give that little brother a pass ?

sounds like the plot for another 'Chucky' movie.

http://news.doddleme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Curse-of-Chucky-2013-Movie-Image.jpg