1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by JellyJar, Sep 26, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JellyJar

    JellyJar Well-Known Member

    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.



    Moderator Note:


    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.

    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2011
  2. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    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

    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
  3. JellyJar

    JellyJar Well-Known Member

    So it is yes no or whatever! Rats!
  4. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Well-Known Member

    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)
  5. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. Ricky T

    Ricky T Well-Known Member

    Herman is pro 2nd. amendment. Vote for Herman. I will. Better yet, send his campaign some money. I have.
  7. husbandofaromanian

    husbandofaromanian Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011
  9. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member

  10. BikerRN

    BikerRN member

    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.

  11. ILikeLead

    ILikeLead Well-Known Member

    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!
  12. DukeNukem

    DukeNukem Well-Known Member

    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?
  13. Tallinar

    Tallinar Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. ants

    ants Well-Known Member

    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?
  15. Psa1m144

    Psa1m144 Well-Known Member

    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
  16. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. swinokur

    swinokur Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. 22lr

    22lr Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. Tallinar

    Tallinar Well-Known Member

    ^ This.

    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.
  20. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member


    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.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page