Herman Cain on gun control and the 2a. Anyone know?


PDA






JellyJar
September 27, 2011, 12:59 AM
Does anyone here really know what Herman Cain's true stance on the 2A may be?

I wrote his campaign a letter last week about this and have not had a reply.

Thanks

JJ



***
Moderator Note:

Folks,

The discussion is on Mr. Cain's 2A position.

Other political topics are out of scope for THR and this thread. This is clearly spelled out in this forum's posting requirements sticky (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=271365).

I'm not closing the thread, but posts that don't limit themselves solely to information on Herman Cain's 2A position will be deleted.

If you enjoyed reading about "Herman Cain on gun control and the 2a. Anyone know?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mljdeckard
September 27, 2011, 01:07 AM
Cain position on Gun Control

The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right?

Cain is a firm supporter of the Second Amendment.
“I support the Second Amendment … 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 …”
June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer


Legislations
Cain’s view on the Second Amendment is completely at odds with the mainstream conservative Republican position, in that, Cain favors state level gun control legislations..

“… yes, that (gun legislations) should be a state’s decision.”
June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer

JellyJar
September 27, 2011, 01:57 AM
So it is yes no or whatever! Rats!

Ridgerunner665
September 27, 2011, 02:18 AM
Cain sounds OK to me (based on the above post, I know nothing else of him)...it should be a state decision. (states have Constitutions too)

mljdeckard
September 27, 2011, 03:02 AM
I certainly trust him (or any of the other red candidates) more than the current leader on the issue. I think that if he goes further in the race he will be forced to firm up his position a bit. And none of them want to alienate our vote right now. Romney is a 'born again' gun person, but if he won, I think he would feel enough pressure to remember who put him there this time.

Ricky T
September 27, 2011, 08:28 AM
Herman is pro 2nd. amendment. Vote for Herman. I will. Better yet, send his campaign some money. I have.

husbandofaromanian
September 27, 2011, 08:48 AM
I am a Cain supporter also. We still have this looming problem that the supreme court will have to solve. WHAT IS AN ARM. The way I read the 2nd, an arm is anything.

I usually vote Constitution party. However, this year I will have to vote for anyone who has a reasonable chance to beat this socialist.

The next president may have the opportunity to appoint new Supreme Court justices making the court more gun friendly.

USAF_Vet
September 27, 2011, 10:09 AM
Considering many states already have gun control laws, many of which are either rundundant of Fed law, or stricter than Fed law, his support of State level gun control is a moot point. States have had the ability to legislate gun control since inception. Look at Illinois, New Jersey, New York and California, all of their gun control is on the state level.

alsaqr
September 27, 2011, 10:17 AM
Cain claims he supports our Second Amendment rights. Then he says our Second Amendment rights are subject to the whims of state politicians. Cain is no better than numerous other anti-gun politicians who claim to support our Second Amendment rights.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/herman-cain-gun-control-a-states-issue-huh/

BikerRN
September 27, 2011, 10:49 AM
Cain is right.
It is, and should be, a State issue. It is not within the powers of the federal government, according to strict interpretation of the documents this nation was founded upon, to enact gun control.
Sadly this is just another example, federal gun control, of why the wrong side won the War of Northern Aggression.

BikerRN

ILikeLead
September 27, 2011, 11:42 AM
Biker RN says" It is, and should be, a State issue. It is not within the powers of the federal government, according to strict interpretation of the documents this nation was founded upon, to enact gun control.
Sadly this is just another example, federal gun control, of why the wrong side won the War of Northern Aggression.

BikerRN "

I agree 100%. It is not hard at all to move to another state b/c of laws you don't believe in. It is less feasible to move to a different country. 99% of the issues today deal with Federales overstepping their bounds and that was unleashed by Reconstruction!

To remain on topic, States are allowed to make some pretty restrictive rules, even some I don't agree with. Case in point, California and New Jersey. But I doesn't really concern me because I don't live in either state!

DukeNukem
September 27, 2011, 12:22 PM
Why should a state have the power to infringe your right to keep and bear arms when the right being guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is an individual right? Or maybe a better question would be, how much gun control is allowed without it being infringement? If a state can limit you to a 10 round magazine, why not a two round magazine, for example?

Tallinar
September 27, 2011, 01:01 PM
If a state can limit you to a 10 round magazine, why not a two round magazine, for example?

Better for it to be the state than the federal government.

That's the beauty of statehood. If I really, really don't approve of what's going on in my state, I have the power to ultimately "vote with my feet" and leave. Sure, it's tough for you to uproot your family and everything you've known and move, but rejoice in the fact that you have the freedom to do so if it comes to it.

Furthermore, look at what happens to the reputation and economy of states like California who go off the deep end and incorporate such asinine gun laws. They've made themselves out to be the odd duck to the point where folks in other states begin to refuse to do business with or within California. Good, bad, or indifferent - it's what we see happening.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with your point that many states definitely do infringe on 2nd amendment rights - and I'm not sure where the line is.

ants
September 27, 2011, 01:50 PM
I must be missing something.

The Bill of Rights prevents a government -- ANY government -- from infringing upon or abridging our natural rights.

ANY government includes state governments. Or am I missing something?

Psa1m144
September 27, 2011, 01:54 PM
Cain seems to be a decent candidate. I've listened to several of his speeches and he will definitely not pose any threat to our second amendment...however...I doubt he will do much in the ways of protecting it from future attacks. He is probably my 2nd or 3rd choice out of the current GOP candidates.

As far as his stance on the states being in control of gun legislation, I do agree with that stance at this point in time(although not the ideal situation)... only because the thought of the feds being in complete control of it scares the crap out of me. Now if our country respected the laws of the republic and did not act as if the fed was more powerful than the constitution I might have a different opinion... For now I can always move to another state if I don't agree with the laws of the one I'm living in, but I'd rather not have to look for another country... too much work :p

Zundfolge
September 27, 2011, 01:59 PM
Let us not forget the 10th Amendment in our defense of the 2nd.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

swinokur
September 27, 2011, 02:22 PM
SCOTUS has already decided in Heller /McDonald that the 2nd amendment applies to the states. What needs to be clarified is if the right extends oiutside the home and whether it is a core civil right that can only be infringed by a compelling state interest (STRICT SCRUTINY)

There are several cases going through the federal courts that will settle this once a for all. IMO it is a state function but total prohibitions against outside home carry will be found unconstitutional.

22lr
September 27, 2011, 02:56 PM
What is the purpose of a bill of rights if the states are allowed to alter what rights they will grant. Kinda defeats the purpose if you ask me.

Tallinar
September 27, 2011, 03:01 PM
Let us not forget the 10th Amendment in our defense of the 2nd.

^ This.

We still have this looming problem that the supreme court will have to solve. WHAT IS AN ARM. The way I read the 2nd, an arm is anything.

Or maybe a better question would be, how much gun control is allowed without it being infringement? If a state can limit you to a 10 round magazine, why not a two round magazine, for example?

See, this is the dilemma. And the way that the 2nd and 10th ammendments are written, I would have to conclude that the best position is to leave many of the specifics to the state. Or get some serious modern-day elaboration added to the 2nd ammendment.

At the same time, we wouldn't necessarily want RPG's or fully-automatic machine guns available to the general public. Perhaps federal arms regulations does have some small value? I'm not sure.

hso
September 27, 2011, 03:36 PM
Folks,

Let's try to get back on the OP's topic of the Cain 2A position and leave the side/philosophical discussions for another thread.

JellyJar, you should go the the Cain website and ask if they'll point you to the Mr. Cain's position on the 2A on the website. That gives them the opportunity to link you to the information you're seeking.

Guillermo
September 27, 2011, 04:16 PM
The States have no right to limit a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is a little disturbing that Cain thinks they do.

Then again, I would like to hear him speak on it more. It is easy to misinterpret one's position from one line.

janedoedad
September 27, 2011, 06:44 PM
Any GOP nominee will probably be fine anyway

Nixon was an Anti. He truly hated the idea of armed populace.

mgregg85
September 27, 2011, 07:02 PM
Can't believe this hasn't been locked down yet, where is the activism?

fixxer
September 27, 2011, 07:08 PM
I logged on to say THANK YOU for starting this thread. Every time I see something on Fox News about Cain, I wonder what his 2A stance is. I am glad someone actually found the information and spoon fed it for me or I'd be wondering again tomorrow and next week. This is good news.

PowerG
September 27, 2011, 07:44 PM
He definitely needs to clarify his position.

eazyrider
September 27, 2011, 10:49 PM
I am not worried about Cain. He gets freedom. I am also a supporter of his.

hso
September 27, 2011, 11:47 PM
The absence of 2A position on his website is disappointing.

Guillermo
September 28, 2011, 12:48 AM
Herman Cain at 2011 NRA meeting.

Never addresses guns but does gun owners.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGh4U9iavjM

T2K
September 28, 2011, 06:49 AM
Here's the primary source for his view on the states making the concealed carry laws. Look, he's clearly a Consitutionalist and a patriot, I would have zero concerns with him in the White House. He's my #1 candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGb9Fu-ckSY&feature=related

alsaqr
September 28, 2011, 07:55 AM
The absence of 2A position on his website is disappointing.

It speaks volumes about his character.

hso
September 28, 2011, 08:41 AM
Even in the NRA video linked above he doesn't speak about the individual 2A and the RKBA.

I sent an email request through the hermaincain.com website (http://www.hermancain.com/contact-us) asking if they would point me to his 2A position on the website. I'm still waiting for a response simply pointing out where it is addressed on his own website.

Guillermo
September 28, 2011, 11:11 AM
it is hard to believe that one that speak to the NRA, supports the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment is not pro gun. It would be incongruent.

It sounds like he misspoke during a fast paced interview.

I am not the only one that works on this supposition.

Like everyone else, I will wait and see...but I am not going off in a tizzy...just yet anyway. :D

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/08/cain-gun-control-should-be-a-states-decision/

hso
September 28, 2011, 11:48 AM
Without a clear RKBA statement from him/his campaign we shouldn't make any assumptions about what his position is or isn't. Making an assumption based on party affiliation or broader issues is no assurance of a politician's support of the full range of pro-RKBA positions.

alsaqr
September 28, 2011, 12:24 PM
The only thing that matters to me is the politicians stance on the Second Amendment-nothing else. i could care less that the pro-gun politician is a fire breathing Protestant preacher or a lesbain Wiccan whos had two abortions. The pro-gunner will get my vote every time.

Folks, it's really easy to Google this stuff up. Here's Cain on Wolf Blitzer. Start at 3 minutes, 25 seconds. Cane gave definitive, concise answers to Blitzer's questions. Now tell me Cain supports our Second Amendment rights. Cain will not get my vote-ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF6lNxqjYJE&feature=player_embedded

Guillermo
September 28, 2011, 01:11 PM
Making an assumption based on party affiliation or broader issues is no assurance of a politician's support of the full range of pro-RKBA positions.

true,

but making assumptions based on core beliefs, like individual liberty, is a decent bet.

I will be shocked if Cain comes out as a gun control nazi.

But like you...I will wait and see.

hso
September 28, 2011, 02:16 PM
Mr. Cain's position on the 2A is the question at hand, not what other candidates have said.

alsaqr
September 28, 2011, 02:42 PM
Should support for our Second Amendment rights be considered a so called "core belief"? i think it should.

hso
September 28, 2011, 02:48 PM
I assume that everyone here thinks that 2A support should be a core requirement for a political candidate, but what actually constitutes "2A support" can be different from one candidate to another, just like it is for our members here.

The members of THR have different opinions about whether the 2A allows for any limitation on the ownership of any sort of "arms". Opinions range from no limitations (artillery, tanks, armed aircraft fully allowed) for anyone by any governmental body to some who think small arms that the Fed can't regulate, but States may, is the limit of the 2A. If we have a range of interpretations of the 2A why not expect the candidates to have a range of "pro-2A" stances?

As such, "my" candidate's "pro-2A" position may be far more restrictive than "your" candidate's "pro-2A" position. That's why I prefer to see a clear position statement in writing bounding the position before I assume a candidate and I are in agreement on this issue.

Guillermo
September 29, 2011, 02:40 PM
Sadly what we may be get is a bunch of people that pay lip service so as to get elected.

Hopefully Cain will respond soon

wannabeagunsmith
September 29, 2011, 03:44 PM
According to Wikipedia: "He believes states have the right to control gun rights" --BS! Don't vote for him, I wont.

DukeNukem
September 29, 2011, 06:42 PM
Here's a tiny bit of explanation from Cain. It's about 10:15 into the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOUF1Hug0JI

I'd still like more specifics on what he thinks is allowable and what isn't.

hso
September 29, 2011, 08:24 PM
Don't "guess", find out.

The 2A is too important to go on vague feelings and impressions. Too many people don't take the time to find out what the facts are and end up being sold a bill of goods.

stubob2517
September 29, 2011, 08:56 PM
http://2ndamendmentright.org/2011/05/22/presidential-series-part-2-herman-cain-he-gets-it-right-on-the-2nd-amendment/

Guillermo
September 30, 2011, 10:04 AM
the link in post #47 is specific.

Cain addresses this issue directly.

Says that the States have no right to limit firearm ownership, but they can do things like background checks.

xXxplosive
September 30, 2011, 10:45 AM
Should be a state issue......? Hmmmmm.....

Unless you live in New Jersey.

Neverwinter
September 30, 2011, 05:00 PM
the link in post #47 is specific.

Cain addresses this issue directly.

Says that the States have no right to limit firearm ownership, but they can do things like background checks.
It looks like there is a silver lining around the storm cloud that is Cain's platform.

Sent from Tapatalk

hso
September 30, 2011, 06:57 PM
So he thinks that the states should be able to require background checks, but does he think the individual should have to pay to exercise the right guaranteed under the BOR and is a right you have to pay for a right?

Jake Benson
September 30, 2011, 07:19 PM
Quote:

"Folks, it's really easy to Google this stuff up. Here's Cain on Wolf Blitzer. Start at 3 minutes, 25 seconds. Cane gave definitive, concise answers to Blitzer's questions. Now tell me Cain supports our Second Amendment rights. Cain will not get my vote-ever."

Hello? I listened to the interview and Cain stated concisely that he supported the 2nd amendment and was against any laws to restrict a citizens' right to own a firearm. I support this man.

basicblur
September 30, 2011, 08:12 PM
The latest on Cain at GOA's site (http://gunowners.org/a09302011.htm):
Herman Cain Soars to the Top of the Republican Field.
But where does he stand on the Second Amendment?

DukeNukem
September 30, 2011, 08:23 PM
I don't think Cain is some sort of rabid gun-grabber, but I'd like to see Cain address the points raised in this letter:

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/open-letter-to-herman-cain-on-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms



In fact, I'd like to see all of the candidates take Codrea's questionnaire.

hso
October 11, 2011, 10:13 AM
Folks,

The discussion is on Mr. Cain's 2A position.

Other political topics are out of scope for THR and this thread. This is clearly spelled out in this forum's posting requirements sticky (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=271365).

I'm not closing the thread, but posts that don't limit themselves solely to information on Herman Cain's 2A position will be deleted.

More - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1tBs56NLzc&sns=em

jon_in_wv
October 11, 2011, 10:47 AM
Well, I'll rephrase my earlier post. From what I have read Cain would be much better for us on his stance on the Second Amendment. Too often we are fooled by guys like Romney, who is a north eastern republican and their version of conservative or supporting the 2nd amendment is often worse than what you would find in southern democrats. We have to be careful of what the candidates record is and not just listen to what they say now they are trying to get our vote. Cain's answers to a questionnaire are much less important to me than what he has done in the past.

hso
October 11, 2011, 10:53 AM
answers to a questionnaire are much less important to me than what he has done in the past.

I completely agree. The challenge is that Mr. Cain doesn't have a political record to examine. Does anyone know what the firearms policy was for Godfather's Pizza? If the company had a no firearms policy it would be a strong indication of what the man who ran it thinks about that point.

Bill_Rights
October 11, 2011, 11:29 PM
Thanks, basicblur, for posting the GOA article from Sept. 30th.

Good idea, hso, to check his company's gun policy. But often, even very pro-gun owners feel they have to post restrictions on possession/carry on business premises for insurance reasons or to placate employees who would be disturbed to know that their fellow employees may be carrying. Also, it may be difficult to get these internal documents out of Godfather's Pizza. I know these things because I am a business owner and have worked for one who was pro-gun but had no-gun-on-premises policy.

It also may be that Herman Cain is pro-Constitution but never "got into" the pro-RKBA issue in any depth. I know I was that way for my whole life until it was clear that Obama was going to win the Presidency. In fact, it was only after that that I looked for a joined THR. This in spite of the fact that I have been a gun owner and shooter all of my teenage and adult life (decades). Cain may be in the same boat.

I think Herman Cain does not realize how big a deal 2A stuff is in the political sphere. After all, he is not a professional politician. So I wrote his campaign to let him know. Here is the content of my letter to the Cain campaign office:
SUBJECT: Your position on 2nd Amendment?
DATE: 11 Oct. 2011

Dear Mr. Cain and Staff,

I am a supporter and have donated money to your campaign. I continue to wish you the best of success in winning the nomination!

Regarding gun rights, the 2nd Amendment and your positions on them, please clarify publicly as soon as possible. I know it seems like a second-tier issue, but there are millions of "gun voters" out here who can't give you full support until this is cleared up.

An article on 30 Sept. 2011 by the Gun Owners of America gives a summary of the open questions you need to answer:
http://gunowners.org/a09302011.htm

For convenience, here are three of the main questions:

∙ Is he aware that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to impose the Bill of Rights -- and specifically the Second Amendment -- upon the states?

∙ What does he think about the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago? Does he agree that states and localities -- subsequent to the Fourteenth Amendment -- are constitutionally barred from banning guns?

∙ And what about concealed carry outside of one’s home state? As President, would Herman Cain sign or veto a bill like H.R. 2900, which provides for concealed carry recognition amongst the states?
(For the context, see the full articel at the link above.)

Look, we know you'll be better than Obama on 2nd, 10th and 14th Amendment rights. You probably think that you don't need to address this issue because anybody who is worried about this issue will vote for you over Obama in a heartbeat. That is true, but you do need address this issue. YOU ARE WRONG TO IGNORE THIS ISSUE. As a non-career-politician, you might miss this: SETTING A FIRM PRO-2ND AMENDMENT POSITION WILL HELP YOU WIN THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. You will be amazed at how powerful this issue is and how freeing it will be to millions of voters to get behind you. It will truly help you build primary campaign momentum. Right now, many voters are held back because of your unclear position.

With best regards and best wishes, Bill_Rights (real name given to Cain)

jon_in_wv
October 12, 2011, 03:30 PM
I completely agree. The challenge is that Mr. Cain doesn't have a political record to examine. Does anyone know what the firearms policy was for Godfather's Pizza? If the company had a no firearms policy it would be a strong indication of what the man who ran it thinks about that point.
__________________

True, but I should have phrased that to include all the candidates. The front runner may take a pro-second amendment stance now or on the questionnaire even though he has made statements in the past that seem to say the opposite.

Bill_Rights
October 12, 2011, 03:54 PM
True, but I should have phrased that to include all the candidates. The front runner may take a pro-second amendment stance now or on the questionnaire even though he has made statements in the past that seem to say the opposite. Good point, Jon, about including all candidates. But I believe in "death-bed conversions". We are near to death as a constitutional republic with civil order as founded. To the extent that a candidate believes the urgency and seriousness of the situation, then I believe their death-bed conversion. What they may have said or voted on in the casual past can be discounted.

But is any one of these candidates as serious as we are?

230therapy
October 12, 2011, 04:09 PM
The Federal 2A and state level RKBA are two different things!

The only reason there is blur is because the Federal government is using a bad SCOTUS ruling that perverts the commerce clause beyond original intent to violate the Second Amendment AND reach into the states.

REMEMBER, THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN! (Though they don't act like it). Most have RKBA in their constitutions (and violate them anyway).

stumpers
October 12, 2011, 04:22 PM
The states are not sovereign. There is far too much misinformation on the Constitution put forth by those who wish the document to be something it is not.

The states were sovereign under the Articles of Confederation, but under the Constitution the United States was created by the people. The preamble says "We the people..."

The Constitution is clear that states are not sovereign and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The U.S. is a mix of national and federal construction, separation and balance of power. The states certainly do have rights the national/federal government does not and vice versa, but the notion that states are sovereign entities is incorrect. They gave up that sovereignty by ratifying the Constitution.

Super Sneaky Steve
October 12, 2011, 05:30 PM
I don't trust this man. Not one bit. He lied and flip flopped on the Fed so I think he could flip flop on gun control too. Just like Mittens did.

Blakenzy
October 12, 2011, 06:10 PM
Typical approach for a politician (and despite what Cain says he IS a politician) would be to appear very gun friendly during the primaries where there is a larger concentration of pro 2A folks, and then after obtaining the nomination tone it down quite a bit to appeal to the wider electorate. Once in power it's a complete crap shoot on how any politician will turn out. Most likely any President-elect will quickly forget campaign platforms and adjust his/her views and policies towards what ever grants the his branch greater power. Undermining the Constitution is always good for Presidential powers.

jon_in_wv
October 12, 2011, 08:09 PM
Much more important that which republican to vote in is to not only regain control of the Senate but hopefully to replace a lot of the RINO republicans with true conservatives. Regardless of what Cain's stance may be if no anti-gun legislation can get through Congress his personal views are moot. If a popular pro-gun measure is put on his desk I'm sure any of these guys would sign it rather than take an ant-gun stance that would keep him from getting re-elected.

Bill_Rights
October 17, 2011, 01:33 AM
Jon,
You are, of course, correct. But I guess the Senate would be another thread; it is OT here.

Stumpers,
You are correct. The net result of our system of laws is a three-way between the people, the states and the federal gov't. But doesn't the 10th Amendment clarify this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.On second thought, that is about as clear as mud. But, I trust that it IS clear. I just haven't analyzed it and understood it properly....

And this too is OT.....

alsaqr
October 17, 2011, 08:16 AM
usacarry has this to say about Godfather's Pizza:


http://www.usacarry.com/forums/businesses-against-firearms-2nd-amendment/18778-godfathers-pizza-pizza-hut-united-health-care.html

GodFathers Pizza, Pizza Hut, United Health Care are all anti-gun for their patrons and their employees... regardless of possession of valid state issued concealed carry permits or residence in a "Constitutional Carry State" such as Arizona that requires no permits for concealed or open carry...

hso
October 17, 2011, 11:28 AM
alsaqr,

Citing another website that doesn't attribute an opinion to a valid source isn't a reliable source in and of itself. If an employee of Godfather's can get a copy of the employee handbook and provide it, the section on carry would be a reliable source. Everything else is just hearsay.

Hugo
October 17, 2011, 07:08 PM
Stay mellow folks, the jury is still out on his exact stance. Likely he's just busy with other issues.

Some reporter just needs to ask him to clarify his 2nd amendment stance. Not sure who it will be but somebody will. Is he still hosting his radio talk show?

To quote the wikipedia entry for Herman Cain
"Before his business career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics as a civilian employee of the United States Navy" At least as a mathematician and businessman he likely has a logical mindset. He's from Georgia and lives there now in Atlanta.

It's possible he's on the fence and someone sensible needs to educate him on how bad it is in anti-gun areas like California, New Jersey, etc.. and that firearms help people be safe more often than not.

Tom Selleck is pretty good at explaining the reality of firearms. Also Condoleezza Rice is Pro-gun rights and a southerner as well (from Alabama).

22-rimfire
October 17, 2011, 08:45 PM
I emailed Mr. Cain suggesting he either repond to my email or update the issues section of his web site to include gun control and his positions. I told him that there were many questions about his positions on the gun forums. If by chance he or a staffer respond, I will post.

Bill_Rights
October 19, 2011, 02:28 AM
22-rimfire: I too am still waiting for a response to an E-mail I wrote to the Cain campaign on gun rights. Will post gist of it when/if I get it.

Hugo: Excellent point: Some reporter just needs to ask him to clarify his 2nd amendment stance. Not sure who it will be but somebody will. I have an idea! Instead of asking Cain or his campaign, let's ask a reporter to ask Cain. Does anyone know of a reporter that is friendly with Cain and could get to him? Maybe you/we could pre-load the reporter with the questions and nuances of the issue we have been discussing here. Then the reporter could take a few concentrated minutes and sympathetically take Cain through the issues slowly and carefully.

I agree withLikely he's just busy with other issues.
It's possible he's on the fence and someone sensible needs to educate him on how bad it is in anti-gun areas like California, New Jersey, etc.. and that firearms help people be safe more often than not.

Bill_Rights
October 23, 2011, 11:53 PM
To follow up about ways to get our RKBA/2A questions answered by Cain or his campaign, this web site gives a list of all of Cain's national and state-specific campaign staff:
http://www.p2012.org/candidates/cainorg.html
His campaign manager is Mark Bloch.

Anybody know how to contact any of these folks? The web site given does not give E-mail addresses or phone #s.
Main snail mail headquarters address is:

Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.
P.O. Box 2158
Stockbridge, Georgia 30281

Some addresses of state headquarters are given, too.

BambiB
October 30, 2011, 03:24 AM
Cain's stance on the Second Amendment is a talking point - and a self-contradictory one at that.

See http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/10/242793/anti-gun-herman-cain/
Watch the video. In his own words. He essentially says, "I support the Second Amendment - and I think the states should be able to override the Second Amendment."

And don't miss this video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNpxLe&feature=player_embedded :)

Bill_Rights
October 30, 2011, 01:40 PM
Bambi,

Yeh, I know Cain conveyed that in the video. IIRC, somebody else pointed that out above. But I am with Hugo: stay mellow; this video is not to be taken as a considered, final position.

Also, stumpers has it exactly right. The states are not supposed to have the right to contradict the federal Constitution. I found what I tried to cite earlier and botched. It is: The Constitution of the United States

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted ...blah blah blah ... the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.(Technically, I guess it does not say state legislators cannot pass laws contradictory to the U.S. Constitution, but judges in those states may not enforce contradictory laws.)

HSO, I think the web source of this snip of the Constitution is valid:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

jon_in_wv
October 30, 2011, 10:00 PM
It surprises me how many conservatives see the Heller decision as a blow to State's Rights. Somehow they believe states have the right to throw the 2nd amendment out of the window if they choose. They believe the 2nd amendment doesn't limit state and local authority to do what they want with gun laws but somehow the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc.....do limit what they can do with those rights. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Neverwinter
October 31, 2011, 02:13 AM
Cain's stance on the Second Amendment is a talking point - and a self-contradictory one at that.

See http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/10/242793/anti-gun-herman-cain/
Watch the video. In his own words. He essentially says, "I support the Second Amendment - and I think the states should be able to override the Second Amendment."

And don't miss this video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNpxLe&feature=player_embedded :)
When you view that video, you have to remember the context. Herman Cain has to appeal to the base that will get him the nomination in the primaries, but also not make it impossible for him to move toward a position that can win the nation. It's harder to tell a candidate's final position because the composition of the primaries are so out of touch with the rest of the nation in the general election.

BambiB
November 1, 2011, 05:13 AM
When you view that video, you have to remember the context. Herman Cain has to appeal to the base that will get him the nomination in the primaries, but also not make it impossible for him to move toward a position that can win the nation. It's harder to tell a candidate's final position because the composition of the primaries are so out of touch with the rest of the nation in the general election.

I always figured that a politician who will lie to you during the campaign is just plain dishonest and should be removed from consideration as soon as possible. If they lie to you when they need your vote, what stops them from doing much worse once they DON'T need your vote?

Innate dishonesty is one of the most prevalent and important disqualifiers for virtually any job. POTUS, cop, salesman, dog catcher, teacher... if they lie, they should be fired. If you catch them lying before they're hired... they shouldn't get the job.

WRT the Second Amendment, Cain is ignorant of the Constitution, is an idiot, or is a liar. Maybe all three. (IMO, PROBABLY all three.)

For those who don't understand the operation of the Bill of Rights, they were a condition precedent to the enactment of the Constitution. The anti-federalists (Jefferson, et al) refused to sign without a BoR. As ratified, all the states agreed that they were part of the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supremes have gone through a sort of legal square dance over the issue of "incorporation" of the rights spelled out in the BoR (never said the Supremes were all that bright - and often their stupidity is overwhelming... see Wickard v. Filburn on the Commerce Clause) but they finally figured out that the Second Amendment applies to the States in the Heller decision.

Sort of.

That said, under any theory of law, the Second Amendment is the Supreme Law of the Land. So in an honest Supreme Court, that would be the end of the story in every Federal, State, County and Municipal jurisdiction within the USA. But the Supreme Court isn't completely honest, so the legal masturbation will go on for decades as the "boobs in Black" come up with different ways to carve out exceptions, and appear to do the right thing, while doing the political thing.

An example of what I mean: In Heller, there is an exception to the "right to bear arms" that applies to "dangerous and unusual" arms. The thrust of the opinion is that machine guns fall into this category because they're both "dangerous" and "unusual".

Of course, a firearm that isn't "dangerous" is pretty useless as a firearm. (Might still be fine for a mantle piece.) Even BB guns are "dangerous". Surely handguns, shotguns and rifles are "dangerous". So "dangerous" is just a term the BiB threw out as a gratuitous qualifier intended to help build the case for the second part of the exception: "Unusual". Like an AK-47 or an M-16.

Except, the reason that these full-auto firearms are "unusual" is because of the NFa 1934 and the GCA 1968, which effectively banned ownership of any new machine guns. Get it? The exception eats its own tail. If not for the unconstitutional taxes/prohibition in the NFA/GCA, machine guns would likely be as plentiful as AR-15s and AKS are today. But the GCA made them "unusual" and so subject to special limitations.

Of course, there's nothing in the Second Amendment that says, "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms, so long as they aren't dangerous and unusual, shall not be infringed" - but that's the way the Boob-in-Black created that particular canard, that judicial LIE.

Now suppose the ruling had been on the constitutionality of the 14th or 19th Amendments. The BiB version might have read, "No one shall be compelled to be a slave... unless they're already a slave, in which case, this doesn't apply", or "All women may now vote - unless they've never voted before, in which case they may not vote now."

Except in the case of Heller, the key word is "unusual", as applied to firearms that are only "unusual" because the government made them "unusual".

hso
November 1, 2011, 09:58 AM
I still haven't gotten a reply from the Cain campaign and I still don't see a clear 2A statement in his website.

exavid
November 5, 2011, 01:11 AM
I don't know exactly where Herman Cain is on gun rights. At least he hasn't come out against the second amendment or RKBA either. It takes more than a president to infringe on constitutional rights so the cabinet and advisors a president assembles will tell the tale.

Ohio Gun Guy
November 5, 2011, 09:43 PM
Romney has been on both sides of every issue, and maybe back again on some....

Cain, I think gets it. Yes, many of his positions are not 100% known, but anyone who believes the power of the federal government is limited, likely believes that about the 2nd amendment. I think he's not coming out on it because he hasnt needed to yet.

I WILL BE LISTENING AND FOLLOWING WHAT HE SAYS VERY CLOSELY! I VOTE, AND I VOTE THIS ISSUE! I strongly believe that if someone will ignore the 2nd, they hold no other (God Given) right sacred either.

BambiB
November 8, 2011, 04:06 AM
Cain sounds OK to me (based on the above post, I know nothing else of him)...it should be a state decision. (states have Constitutions too)

So, would you be okay with each state deciding whether you could practice your religion, speak freely, petition the government for redress of grievances? Would you be okay with each state deciding whether its police could arbitrarily strip search you for no reason at all, or monitor your phone, computer, written and spoken communications? How about cruel and unusual punishment? Think states should just decide whether you are entitled to a trial by jury? Or whether that jury should be made up of your peers or just anyone the states decides should hang, er, I mean TRY you?

If you're willing to say states can take away your right to bear arms, why not all these rights - and others - as well?

And if you're okay with that, then Cain's your man!

hso
November 8, 2011, 09:29 AM
One of the reasons that we don't have discussions on politics here is that members cannot seem to resist the urge to shift focus off the 2A and onto other issues that aren't within our scope.

The topic is Mr. Cain's 2A position. What other positions he may have are not on topic. What other issues there are around him are not on topic.

blue_ridge
November 8, 2011, 03:45 PM
I posted to this earlier today, but it has mysteriously vanished.

So, again, in Cain's own words:

“I strongly support the Second Amendment...In the Declaration of Independence, where it says we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are -- you hear the part that among these? -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Among these means, there are some more unalienable rights. And I happen to believe that one of those other unalienable rights is the right to protect yourself, protect your family, protect your property, and that’s why we have the Second Amendment. We have the unalienable right to protect ourselves and that means a strong, uninhibited Second Amendment,” he said.

ErikO
November 9, 2011, 03:01 PM
Unalienable does not mean leave it to State level government to decide.

basicblur
November 9, 2011, 07:33 PM
So, again, in Cain's own words
As one of his former aides is reported to have said; If you let him respond long enough, he'll eventually talk himself out of his position.
Based on the abortion segment with John Stossel (as well as others), I'd say the former aide hit the nail on the head. I think he talked himself out of his position 'bout 10 times, but the back and forth (with himself) was kinda like watching a tennis match as he flip-flopped-flip-flopped-flip... (well, you get the idea).

And iff'n one can talk themselves out of their position, it probably means they don't really have one.

When he first came on the scene I was willing to give him a test drive-well that turned out to be a clunker.
Despite the media fawning over how likeable he is, he just gives me the creeps, and that has nothing to do with his current problems.
The olde Spidey sense now tingles every time I see him-just like it always has with Michelle Bachmann.

blue_ridge
November 9, 2011, 08:03 PM
As one of his former aides is reported to have said; If you let him respond long enough, he'll eventually talk himself out of his position.
Based on the abortion segment with John Stossel (as well as others), I'd say the former aide hit the nail on the head. I think he talked himself out of his position 'bout 10 times, but the back and forth (with himself) was kinda like watching a tennis match as he flip-flopped-flip-flopped-flip... (well, you get the idea).

And iff'n one can talk themselves out of their position, it probably means they don't really have one.

When he first came on the scene I was willing to give him a test drive-well that turned out to be a clunker.
Despite the media fawning over how likeable he is, he just gives me the creeps, and that has nothing to do with his current problems.
The olde Spidey sense now tingles every time I see him-just like it always has with Michelle Bachmann.

You're sure nailin' down the facts. Please include your source for the former aide's comments, so we can deal in reality rather than relying on your Spidey sense. I googled it and found one source, NY Times. If that's your source, we can discount it without further discussion.

There isn't a candidate with a more loyal Constitutional position than Cain, IMO.

basicblur
November 9, 2011, 08:12 PM
You're sure nailin' down the facts. Please include your source for the former aide's comments, so we can deal in reality...
Don't haff to-I've seen it in action (that's enough reality for me) in more than one video-all you have to do is dig up the Stossel video and you too can see it in practice!

...rather than relying on your Spidey sense
Tried to deny the old instincts for years and probably gave too many folks too much benefit of the doubt, only to end up slapping my forehead and realizing I shoulda heeded the olde Spidey sense!

Yeah...I still give folks some leeway 'til they prove me wrong, but I pay much closer attention to ye olde instincts than I used to.

There isn't a candidate with a more loyal Constitutional position than Cain, IMO
More than Ron Paul?

blue_ridge
November 9, 2011, 09:15 PM
You've got three candidates to choose, unless you prefer Obama. Paul is not one of them. I've donated to Paul before. Love him. But he's not going to sniff the White House. Cain, Romney or Gingrich. Cain is the one who will protect the 2nd amendment most of those three.

From Cain's speech at the NRA annual meeting 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=kplLAcpJtbw

capt.hollis
November 9, 2011, 11:42 PM
Cain is the one who will protect the 2nd amendment most of those three.

yes

hso
November 10, 2011, 12:01 AM
Then why no written position instead of stump speeches?

beatledog7
November 10, 2011, 10:42 AM
We seem to have a lot of these "Candidate X on 2A threads, and they do tend to get into other Constitution-related topics. I think that's inevitable and good, since how a President or any other elected Federal official views the Constitution in general is a major influence on how he/she will treat RKBA.

A Congressman, Senator, or President who generally poo-poos the Constitution will not respect RKBA.

45crittergitter
November 19, 2011, 10:59 PM
Jim Shepherd's interview with Cain:

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/225223

Bill_Rights
November 19, 2011, 11:47 PM
hso: "Then why no written position instead of stump speeches?"Completely aside from the recent bru-ha-ha about alledged sexual harassment, I think Mr. Cain may not be ready for prime time this 2012 campaign season. There is a lot to it, and I think it takes more than a few months to prepare. A well thought out written position on 2A is a case in point. It is one of the dozens of things that just didn't get done.

I personally think that Cain will be fine on 2A and all related issues. I can't justify this opinion. It is something like a "Spidey sense".

One reason I think Cain will be OK on 2A is his boldness. One evidence: I love Cain's positive disdain for and mocking of the left-leaning media. In this, he resembles a Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney. These guys laughed at media personnel while toying with them. Diss'ing the media is the one thing YOU MAY NOT DO and still get good press. But the biased press/media is a big part of the problem and must be overcome. Newt is even better at putting the media in its place than Cain is. Same boldness and longer experience.

In short, a candidate must be able to hold to his/her principles even under public pressure. There is, day-in-and-day-out, no greater pressure group than the media, because they have the power to suppress your message (by just not reporting on you). When it comes to 2A rights, the press/media by 85-95% of headcount opposes full Constitutional 2A rights. Therefore, a candidate must be able to ignore press pressure and overcome media suppression of his/her message. Cain at least has demonstrated the fearlessness and boldness to do these things. He may not have the ways and means to execute on his boldness. Like I say: may not be ready for prime time. Give him four more years of prep and he'll be super!

If you enjoyed reading about "Herman Cain on gun control and the 2a. Anyone know?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!