47 votes

‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities

Appearing on Glenn Beck‘s radio show this past week, Dr. Benjamin Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.


Sorry if this has been posted. i searched and did not see it. in light of the current love-fest around him i thought everyone should take a step back and listen to everything he said in this interview. i don't even agree with half of what he said.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Having been impressed with

Having been impressed with Dr. Carlson's Prayer Breakfast and CPAC speeches, I'm left feeling a bit tossed-down by his comments to Beck about gun control.

I've been doing a self-study in a basic logic textbook and would like to use this opportunity to try to logic-out his reasoning here.

Carlson takes as a given that Second Amendment gives the people a right to "have weapons."

Given 1: American citizens have the right own weapons.

Question: Does that right apply universally to all guns -- specifically semi-automatic guns?

Carlson say, No.

He asserts a geographic limitation that applies only if you "live amidst lots of people." If you live "outside in the country, by yourself," Carlson has no problem with the broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. He asks us to contemplate what each side is most afraid of in contending with this issue.

So to bring Carlson's 2nd Amendment Rights GIVEN up to speed: The Second Amendment is broad when it comes to people living in less populated areas, but more narrow for people living in close proximity to their neighbors.

The New Given: The 2nd Amendment is a discriminator amendment. It is a flexible thing, able to stretch to dis-arm whatever group we're afraid of. Dr. Carlson is afraid of people who live among lots of people; he's willing to consider them less than a natural man, afforded the rights and responsibility of self defense with the best armaments they can afford.

To test the veracity of that given, would we not be justified in asking if a person living in a low-density population area has a greater degree of freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? Freedom from self-incrimination?

I sincerely doubt that Dr. Carlson would continue to claim this given were he to think about it in such terms.

Delving deeper into his statements, which appear to shine a light on why he went so far from logic's trail, we see that when he was asked to contemplate semi-automatic weapons in the hands of city-dwellers, he switched to "I" statements -- "I'm afraid that weapons will fall into crazy hands" and "I would rather you not have it."

He's afraid. I get it. But HIS FEAR is no license to curtail the rights of others.

With country folk, he's fine with the broad second person -- the YOU, the every man framed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- but when it comes to city folks, his rhetoric becomes personal, defensive, fearful. He doesn't trust this YOU, the entire geographically defined class that chooses to live close-packed.

If we were to apply Dr. Carlson's interpretation of the rights afforded to citizens of the newly founded U.S.; we would dismiss the "all men" language of the Declaration and so much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "All men" and the notion of natural rights would hinge upon where you chose to live -- or worse, found yourself living by birth and fearful, stubborn refusal to live in a "more-free" zone.

His interview here, I'm hoping, was a bit of a caught-off-guard moment. I hope that he does, or will come to, understand that so many of the city folk he so distrusts are descendants of those who migrated out of the South in the early part of the last century because they were courageous enough to take their own destinies into their own hands, call their own shots, and make for their own defense.

I live in one of those out-in-the-country and by-myself areas. I don't carry a gun everyday, but I do frequently carry because I hike, mountain bike, and backpack in bear country. I'm not very much afraid of people, but I'm afraid of bears and can't even sleep in a tent in the backcountry without a big, loaded gun at arm's reach -- my husband's arm's reach makes me feel even better.

The only other time I feel the need to bring my semi-auto handgun along for the ride is when I'm taking my son on a road trip that will bring us into big cities. I'm not worried about myself or my son; I'm worried that we'll happen upon some act of violence and I will fail to intervene because I'm afraid for myself and/or my son; I don't want to let someone be hurt or die because I didn't feel capable of intervening. When I have a gun -- a good gun, a gun that doesn't force me to use both hands to shoot more than once, or force me to have to re-aim to shoot again (like all single actions do) -- in other words a semi-auto, I'm more able and likely to intervene. I fail to see how telling me that I can't legally enter Dr. Carson's ideal of a city, where he feels more comfortable that no one have semi-autos, does anything positive. Carlson's logic path means that once I, the country-living-gal, who is A-okay to own and carry a semi-auto, is not longer A-okay once I hit the boundaries of his "lot of people," Constitutionally-limited area, I'm all of a sudden out of bounds and lacking Constitutional, nay natural rights, and worse has somehow morphed into a creature that has not such rights. What? I drive across some arbitrary population-density border and I'm suddenly a threat?

Okay, so obviously I'm not that far along in my logic textbook; I'm working through. But I'd like Dr. Carlson to submit evidence about why his premise that once I hit some "lots of people" boundary, I should be less protected and able to protect than than I'm living "out in the country" and "by myself."

I understand that Dr. Carlson grew up on the "mean streets" and feels somewhat personally threatened. But to let his mean-street mentality dictate his constitutional philosophy is to give up on the entire notion he espouses; people are people -- geography, color, population density be damned -- deserving of the same rights and required of the same responsibilities.

He doesn't understand the proper role of government.

I'm not afraid of people owning semiautomatic guns. I'm afraid that they won't. It doesn't matter if you live in a crowded city or alone in the country, the law will reach you, but serving justice in a free society won't protect you when somebodies breaking down your door.

Justice is a coercive force which scares off the weak willed who fear the real world consequences should they be caught, and a functional tool removing people from society when that coercion doesn't work.

13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You wanted to take liberty? You wanted slaves? Well guess what; now you're a slave. (lol) Stew on that for 20 years.

Ever heard of destabilization?

@bigdogpete43 According to FBI Statistics-
The CIA doesn't only focus its operations overseas...it also destabilizes organizations and communities it sees as a threat in the US. You do know its a documented fact that our gov. runs drugs into this country. Where do you think those drugs end up? Most low-income black males didn't have access to the planes that former Gov. Clinton did. You also know that our gov. is involved in the illegal arms trade. You must know that inner city streets didn't become inundated with illegal weapons on accident. So when you start quoting stats, please keep in mind that you are talking about targeted communities. Why were/are they targeted? For various reasons, but the most compelling stated that a great deal of the destabilization occurred to oppress militant groups from unifying to resist police brutality in the '60. The group you all love to hate, exercised their Constitutional right by regularly patrolled their neighborhoods with legally acquired arms to defend themselves against police brutality. African-Americans have been dealing with excessive force by the police for decades, if not centuries. Its almost bizarre to see people talk about it as though this is a new phenomenon. Many turned a blind eye. But like an unchecked disease, now its affecting everyone, .
Final note, it is racist propaganda to talk about black-on-black crime when you realize you never hear of white on white, red on red, brown on brown, etc. Use a little wisdom. Peace

LKY's picture

Stop labelling him

Dr. Carson is a man of his own mind. He does not claim his political left or right. He speaks for his own mind. He was asked for his own opinion on 2nd Amemdaments. He is entitled to it. He did not take this opportunity to start tell others how they should listen to him, which any other politicians would love to do at this point.

If you know agree with him, persuade him with facts. Stop the name calling. Libertarian is not a party, it is an idea about liberty.

He has the right to his opinions

But, if those opinions are anti-liberty, like AR-15's should be banned in large cities then I don't want him in any government position where he would have the ability to make that happen. He can fight alongside use. But, I don't want him to be my president if THAT's how he interprets the second amendment.

I'm down-voting this whole thread

Why..because it's nothing but a paranoid schizophrenic rant against a man that is Apolitical and accountable to nobody except himself for his own actions and opinions.
He owes you nothing, he owes the liberty movement nothing, and if you can't accept his views as personal, and his right to express them, then you do yourself a dis-service.
Do those of you that post this literary polution ever take the time to read what you post..

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

He is a PLANT like so many others. Herman Cain is Tea Party too.

When will you all learn.

Gun Control and Central Banking are not favorites of the Tea Party or Independents and yet this is who we are told represents our cause... and many of you actually follow chase down these rabbit trails to nowhere.

Get a brain before promoting the likes of these usurpers.


i agree

Why ben carson and why now, where was news of him during the primaries, where was news of him during the election, why wasn't his conservative views given praise then and why now ?

what else useful does he have to contribute to the discussion ?

I think he had to be politically correct when stating that gun ownership should be restricted to urban city dwellers, what he meant to say is that young black men are killing other young black men in chicago therefore something needs to be done about the availability of these weapons.

why is beck sucking this guys dick so hard, sheesh, beck wants to use him for something apparently, otherwise he would not have him on and ask him if he is running for office so intently.

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

He's a Democrat. He just recently became Independent or

something else when he started getting all the FOX Love on Hannity and getting everyone asking him to speak. He's star struck and loving all the media attention and his ego is telling him he could be President if all these crazy Republicans vote for him.

I'll listen to God...spar o

Kind of creepy listening to Beck and Carson on this topic. Wouldn't want any political decisions "left up to God," or people considering "outside voices" credible. This sounds close to when George W spoke of "Gog and Demigog..." SCARY...

Carson is now WAY OFF my list as presidential hopefuls.

So many are quick to judge Carson

in a negative light and at the same time sing the praises of "Rand 2016". Yet the two seem more similar than different:

- Both are doctors.
- Neither had political experience prior to stepping on the national political stage.
- Both are conservative with strong libertarian-leaning positions.
- And most importantly, both have shown they can veer from supporting the Constitution:
* Carson on the Second Amendment/gun control
* Rand on his support of an anti-constitution candidate for president in 2012 (as one example)

So it's ok to give Rand a pass when he veers from constitutional principles, but not Carson?

Gun control is not a more important issue than who sits in the Oval Office - both can dole out a severe beating to essential liberty in equal measure, as we have seen with increasing frequency over the last decade.

The jury should still be out on both Carson and Rand at this point.

Rand never had political experience?

You do not grow up in the home of a political candidate and not get any political experience.

Rand did not support Romney. Rand warned all the Ron Paul delegates who thought they could sign a GOP loyalty Oath and when Ron Paul lost the state primary, could go and vote Ron Paul anyways.

You know that people were hurt, and people went stealth, and even more people had to go stealth. Rand woke people up, and that includes me. If I was not a Republican and a national delegate I would have not known had it not been for Rand making me ask, WHAT IS HE DOING?" Rand was warning delegates.. GOP was looking for any reason to kick Ron paul supporters OUT.. Rand did Ron a huge favor, though many who are not in the4 GOP, or understand loyalty oaths don't get it.

If you are a Republican you will support Rand.

And finally, Carson supported Obama. I can't imagine a real conservative doing that.

I can't imagine

A real conservative voting for Romney, and saying "I hope he wins".

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Maybe I can help

A real conservative who understands that the president is going to come from one of two parties, and the liberal is on the Democratic Party.. of course they will hope the Republican, by any name, wins.

And the grassroots in the GOP, are not happy that the GOP gave them Romney (who the Christians are very pissed at the GOP for letting them down by not giving them a Christian to vote for.

To many, the election was Obama and Romney, and Romney was the lesser of the two.. the best part about Romney, was it pissed the majority of the GOP off and now they want the top down run GOP to end.. and another eason why they like Rand so much.. they don't want to be fooled by the GOP again.

I understand you believe in Rand

Granger, but to say "If you are a Republican you will support Rand" is the antitheses of the libertarian philosophy. Party loyalty is what got us to where we are today and will get us more of the same until citizens learn to discern for themselves. That kind of group-think is the reason Ron lost the Republican nomination and precisely how Obama got re-elected.

And the influence of growing up in a political family just does not constitute political experience - the uncomfortable reality is that Carson and Rand are on equal footing in that respect, among others.

To say Rand did not support Romney is revisionist history: we all sat here and watched Rand endorse him on national television and no amount of cognitive dissonance is going to change that fact. As is evidenced here on DP, everyone is entitled to their individual opinion on the matter.

I don't believe in Rand

I believe that Rand has the integrity and mission as his father, but is going after Liberty, with more teeth than Ron Paul could or would.

The GOP is changing.. when I first began going to meetings, the committee was really cold to me, but now, there's at least four of us showing to evry meeting, and the ones who remained from the last election are now talking and voting like us.

As for Rand's endorsement of Romney.. it means something completely different to a Republican than to someone who wanted to win the election that was not a Republican. There's the divide in this movement.

IOW, some in this movement are willing to lose some battles because our long range allows for some loses.. but we are not giving up on the goal of restoring the Republic.. least anyone forget, the GOP establishment is losing far more battle than we are, and why they are fighting us with dirty politics. They can't beat us fair and square.

I believe in us.

As a registered Republican

for 35 years, Granger, I disagree with your contention that "it means something completely different to a Republican than to someone who wanted to win the election that was not a Republican." Blanket statements like this are completely opposed to exactly what the liberty movement is about and what Ron Paul taught us: we carry water for no party and no individual.

I do agree with you that anyone who is "is going after Liberty, with more teeth than Ron Paul could or would" deserves our attention. Careful, clear, thoughtful attention through the viewfinder of constitutional principles.

All I'm saying is that the same criticism Carson is taking in this thread for veering from constitutional principles should be applied to any political player without exception - and that includes Rand.

You are correct

It means something completely different to those who joined the GOP because of Ron Paul's message, became national GOP delegates, took committee seats, went for offices, and are now part of the GOP and fighting the GOP establishment (and the frauds in other institutions).. where at the CA convention the tea party looks like what we must have looked like on 2012.. the difference being we are new to the party and they were already in the party.. Rand was never given a free ride.. just ask MN who has made many posts on DP saying THIS WILL NOT BECOME THE DAILY RAND.

A 'greater than thou'

attitude has no place in the liberty movement - it serves to be divisive, a favorite tactic of the GOP itself. What difference does it make when and why someone became a Republican? What difference does it make what party someone belongs to at all as long as they believe in liberty and the Constitution, for that matter?

No need to school anyone here on the DP about MN positions - he speaks loud and clear, especially about Rand.

And so does your signature.

Godspeed in your efforts to change things from within. Time will tell if they were worth it.

I agree again

And I apologise if you are offended by my response, as if I am holier than thou.. I an NOT! I hope you can pardon me because that is not my point and it shames me to think that's how I came across to you. I'm sorry.

What difference does it make when someone becomes a republican? I have one regret since I came to the rEVOLution, that I did not join the GOP in 07. I only came into the GOP when RonPaul announced his 2012 bid for president, and only because I KNEW, there was NO way he would guit the GOP as I wish he had. Instead, I joined the GOP and found Ron Paul to be 100% RIGHT ON and I LOVE it.. this is after 33 years of activism as a Libertarians and then Indy.. I am very happy now, my only regret is that I did not join in 07, but, I'm now.. so forward we go. :D

What matters is personal, so I can not tell you, however, there are plenty of political tests that can help.. What we are doing in the GOP is stearing the GOP back to protecting the constitution and bill of rights, not we the people.. Rand is doing a fantastic job, I'm sure Ron Paul is proud.

Time tells all, for now, I can say, it's worth it. Thank you for the blessing and kind words, which I admire though you were offended by my post. I hope you can accept my apology.

My $ 0.02

Supporting a candidate is a political strategy. When some of us here claimed to support a candidate during the primary (other than Ron Paul) just to win a delegate slot, it was also a strategy. Supporting gun control is a taking a political stance on a critical issue and should be held to a stricter standard.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. - Matthew 10:16

Thank you

for your thoughtful response. While I don't agree with your view, I appreciate you actually addressing the point I was making in my original post and adding to the conversation about the issue.

the more i learn about carson the less i like him

"Rand on his support of an anti-constitution candidate for president in 2012"
thank god ron paul would never support a anti-constitution candidate over a liberty candidate.... oh wait never mind...

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY

You do know

that Rand endorsed his father about 6 months before the primaries, and campaigned with him up to NH right?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Front and center here

on the DP for a year before Ron announced his candidacy - and fully aware of when Rand did and did not support a liberty candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

Et tu Brutus with the half

Et tu Brutus with the half truth propaganda?

What do you mean

half truth? What was half truth about my statement?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Prime time

I thought maybe you were ready for prime time, but clearly you have some studying to do Mr. Carson :(

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

Ben Carson, where have you been,

man? How did you miss learning that if semi-autos are banned from cities, only city bad guys will have semi-autos?

Dang it.

I liked his speech at the prayer breakfast, so I kept him on my radar; he seemed like the kind of guy who I'd mostly agree with. There are political sins that I'll forgive, certainly.

This is not one of them. Even though his idea would leave *my* gun rights alone (not in a city), it would deprive others of this fundamental right. If he runs for office, he'd better support the right to bear arms for EVERYONE, regardless of location.