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.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservative-hero-ben-carson-to-b...

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.

If Ben Carson did run for office, he can NEVER be trusted again

especially when it comes to Honoring an OATH of Office/OATH to the Constitution (2nd Amendment) after his comment; "You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities" because, even if at a later date he retracted that statement and we then discover he is or will be running for office, the retraction would not be sincere, it would be nothing more than a lie to trick people into thinking he fully supports the 2nd Amendment for no other reason than to win what ever position he may be running for.
"NO" . . . Ben Carson can NOT be trusted when it comes to OUR Constitutional rights, including the 2nd Amendment! No one can be trusted after such a statement no matter what they say at a later date. They simply would never say such a thing if they didn't feel that way all the time.

"Me thinks he doth protest too much"

You seem very vocal in your condemnation of this man. A man that has simply stated publically, his own personal views on those issues that need to be addressed to save the nation from economic ruin.

When did he say this?.."You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities"
When did he lie?, and about what, or is it you'r just anticipating a lie.
Why can he not be trusted?, and when did he give indication he would not honor an oath of office? Seems he's honored his Hippocratic Oath extremely well.
Finally, is he running for office? or indicated he intends to..link.

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

According to FBI statistics,

According to FBI statistics, a group that is about 6.5% of total population (black males, 85% of violent crime is males) commits about 1/3 of violent crime (FBIs definition). 84% of those live in urban areas. That amounts to about 16 million people.

40% of that crime is committed in the top 15 cities for violent crime, your typical liberal dens--Detroit, New Orleans, Memphis, Baltimore, Chicago, Washington DC, etc. This is based on arrest records, of which half of the cases result in an arrest. 67% of those have been arrested, were arrested before.

The rest of the country, the other 93.5%, or about 295 million people, commit about 2/3 of the violent crime.

That puts them on average, right in line with the countries of Western Europe as far as their rate.

And that has been dropping quite dramatically, while the previous has been rising.

If anyone deserves to lose their right to guns, it is the urban black male population.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c...

the fact

that you went to the trouble to back up your racist agenda with data means you weren't just misspeaking.

If you want to understand WHY blacks make up a larger percent of these statistics, ask Ron Paul.

to sum it up, the problem is governmental intervention into the economy. government makes it difficult to employ people whether it be though safety requirements or tax remission on their behalf. then they bar anyone from being payed a wage below a certain amount via min wage. education has come under governmental control and the quality has been driven down and the price up, as usual. now you have an entire generation of people growing up in cities without basic skills and the bottom rung on the ladder removed. sure, they can get a job at burger king.. but it makes more economic sense to take advantage of the one place without regulation and with HUGE profit potential: drugs. the black market picks up all these people for that fact. and since it's not viewed as legitimate, they can't call the cops. hence your violent crime rates. government then prays on them and an entire, repressive system is built solely around subjugation. prisons are erected and privatized. political deals are made. kickbacks are given and there's your statistics.

nothing to do with "nature" of a particular race.

it has EVERYTHING to do with the chaotic and immoral nature of government.

Ron Paul was talking about

the overall black incarceration rate (which very well may have a racist foundation) for everything including drug possession, not just the violent crime rate. The reason for black men participating in the drug trade as we know it today, which goes hand in hand with urban gang black-on-black violence, doesn't negate the fact that their rate of violence is higher. Simply saying that the percentage of black violence is higher than some other group's isn't racist. Racism is when someone says that the blacks' current rate of violence is because their African genes are faulty. Racism is what has been going on in the government for decades that caused the crisis in the black culture starting in the 1960's.

A higher percentage of black babies are aborted than white babies. It's not racist to merely state that fact. Racism is what was behind the white woman Margaret Sanger's plan to target black neighborhoods with abortion clinics.

Black pastor in Harlem, New York City, James David Manning, says that the reason the black culture is in such a bad way is because the black man has lost his honor. He has no problem saying that black violence is higher than white violence, or that black women are killing more of their babies than white women. He also says that the American black person in general is far more racist than whites are. He says that black people, generally speaking, live and breathe anti-white racism.

Manning is actually doing something to help the poor blacks in Harlem by teaching them how to start businesses, by a jobs hiring program to help people back to work, by running a private school that is graduating black students some of whom are working on advanced degrees at St John's, by a free breakfast ministry for local children, by teaching his students and parishioners how to have honor, how to behave in a civilized manner, and how to move about in higher society. He is doing all this with donated funds, not government money.

"Simply saying that the

"Simply saying that the percentage of black violence is higher than some other group's isn't racist. Racism is when someone says that the blacks' current rate of violence is because their African genes are faulty."

i completely agree. but bigdogpete was going further than that when he said, "If anyone deserves to lose their right to guns, it is the urban black male population."

his whole comment was "here are the stastics. this group is responsible for more crime and violence. they should lose their natural right to self defense."

the fact that it had nothing to do with the cause and instead relied on labeling the entire group at fault is what made it racist.

this isn't being PC either, this is logic.

and Manning might be a good dude, doing good work, but saying "the black man has lost his honor" is bullshit as well.

The reason Manning said that is because

so many black men sire children and walk away from them and their mothers. Something like 80% of black children live in a household with no father. That is the very definition of dishonorable according to Manning. He teaches the black teenagers that come under his influence how to treat a woman with respect and honor.

Manning has lived in the thick of Harlem for 30 years, so personally, I'm betting that he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the black culture that he deals with every day.

Oh, and about the other matter you referenced, I apologize that I did not make a careful reading of the post that you had responded to. I know better than to do that, but I did it anyway. Mea culpa.

First and Last.



Your first sentence:
"According to FBI..."
A trustworthy and noble outfit to quote. Like Wikipedia or the White House. :-)

Your last sentence:
"If anyone deserves to lose their rights to guns, it is the urban black male population".
You are joking, right? I gather that you are not an urban black male.

Who deserves and who doesn't deserve what?
Who has certain unalienable rights and who does not?
Do I deserve my Constitutional rights? It doesn't matter, they are granted me none the less.
My personal actions and responsibility determine whether or not I choose to forfeit them.

Liberty is not bound by color or location.

Exercise Liberty.


America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

Dr. Ben Carson is the first

Dr. Ben Carson is the first surgeon anywhere to successfully separate conjoined (siamese) twins. I will let you draw your own conclusions on the parallels of that and the two party system.

That has nothing to do with it.

He may be a good man with good intentions. He does NOT understand the 2nd Amendment.

Everybody has a purpose in life. His is to continue in the medical field, and leave my Bill of Rights alone.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Awsh*ts and Attaboys...Is It Fair?



Reading through the posts I see the Awsh*t and Attaboy system is still in use.

Here's how it works:

Every time you do or say the right thing ( or what is expected of you ), someone gives you a pat on the back and says, "Atta boy"!

Every time you do or say the wrong thing, you get an, "Aw sh*t"!

The problem is, and it is evident in these postings; is that one Awsh*t wipes out ten Attaboys.

“I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated.

Awsh*t? Geez, I dunno. He's not one of us, we adopted him. He hasn't even been introduced to the Liberty movement yet and he's already + 90% inline with our principles. Heck, give us chance. Heck, give him a chance.
We just met the guy!
Every one of us at some point were not fully on board the Liberty Train. Or even aware of it. Slowly and surely we changed, some faster than others yet gradually, just the same.

We can push him up. Or we can shove him down.
I say no "Awsh*t" and he gets to keep his "Attaboys".

We only have a small handful of potential Leaders of Liberty.
It seems half of us wish to solidify and enhance their Liberty standing whilst the other half would trounce and denounce them for not being 100% inline with our individual perception of perfection.

Rand endorses Romney. Throw him under the bus.
Cruz mentions Israel. Throw him under the bus.
Etc., etc..
Two or three more and we have none left.

I can't see abandoning someone because they're only +90% with me and not 100% with me.
Unfortunately, I see many here who have taken Dr. Carson from hero to zero in one week; without cause for either.

Exercise Liberty.


America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

The voice of reason..

Better down-vote that, and get on with the job of winning hearts and minds to the cause of liberty.
No room for reason or discussion, and little room left under the bus.

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

All that and you still don't get it . . .

Ben Carson can't be trusted "EVER" if he doesn't think people have the Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities then, he don't know enough about the 2nd Amendment to make such a statement and have credibility afterwards.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist only for people that live outside the city limits.
Ben Carson' statement sounds a whole lot like he's taking up obamanations anti-Constitution rhetoric of eventual disarmament of the American people.

If Ben Carson is +90% with "you" but, against the 2nd Amendment for people in Large Cities then, Ben Carson's 10% is more than enough to make him an obama minion. Because, without the 2nd Amendment (even in Large Cities) none of the Constitution will have any meaning and Freedom in America will cease to exist soon after.
You either support the 2nd Amendment rights of American Citizens everywhere in the U.S.A 100% or, you don't fully support the 2nd Amendment at all.
With that said, IMO, your statement in support of Ben Carson is very suspect.
I do NOT trust Ben Carson after that one, yes that one statement and I never will.

If you do not understand the

If you do not understand the Constitution and specifically the second
amendment, You don't get a second chance. Romney deferred constitutional questions to Ron Paul. That should have dq'd Romney right there.

Well said.

I don't agree with Rand 100% either. I didn't jump on the Dr. Carson for President bandwagon to begin with. I think he has a different role to play. I certainly don't agree with his view on semi-auto's but I do think that he's a good guy to have on our team for all his other views.

Give him a chance

How about this guy goes and learns the true meaning of the constitution and how the second amendment applies to every square inch of this country not just the rural areas! And as I posted earlier don`t you think it is a little bit interesting that just as some repuklacan elected officals are looking for a reason to cave on our 2nd amendment rights that this guy shows up from out of nowhere and gives them some political cover? So after the comment about semi automatic guns don`t you think that we need to here a lot more of his ideas before we give him any credit for being a constitutional liberty loving person worthy of our political support? Well I say let him learn and grasp the constitution and then I will give him that chance and not until!

InLibertyDan

Sure. You're right.

In fact, I should have voted romney just to get a republican in! Not.

The political landscape is so pathetically corrupt, I am no longer entertaining sacrificing a little here and a little more there to maybe possibly get ahead until they stomp me down again.

Stand by principle, you've got my support. Falter... see you later.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

One right to protect them all

That's how I see the right to keep and bear arms. It's a litmus test for all politicians, to see if they understand that our rights do not come from government.

I can compromise very little on most things and not at all on my right to protect myself from government or others. It's the most important right we have.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

I agree with you...


...+90%. :-)

Exercise Liberty!


America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

Rand's Sec of State Dr. Ben Carson

Put President Carson, no.

Not with these views.

"First rule of Government Spending: Why build one when you can have 2 at twice the price?"
-S.R. Hadden

An essay laying out a

An essay laying out a libertarian argument for the case of geo-specific limitations on the ownership of weapons: http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/t...

I may have just lost a lot of respect for Walter Block.

Ridiculous. Mere possession of an object does not automatically make it an offensive device when in close proximity to others because something bad MIGHT happen when it is used in self defense. This is the whole argument totalitarians use in a complete ban of firearms. This is just scaled to proportionality, it's essentially the exact same argument.

By the same rational should hate speech be illegal when you are able to have a bigger audience? And where does it stop, whats the scale for appropriate weapons within the scope of population? Who or what determines that?

balderdash.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

"Mere possession of an object

"Mere possession of an object does not automatically make it an offensive device when in close proximity to others because something bad MIGHT happen when it is used in self defense."
So...a certain amount of collateral damage is acceptable when defending yourself?

Straw man

That's all your comment is. It doesn't even deserve a response.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Okay. Then in your opinion

Okay. Then in your opinion what criteria determines a defensive weapon?

And btw...love the down votes for asking questions. I guess discussions that even hint at views that dont completely coincide with your own views are frowned upon.

Logical fallacies aren't legitimate arguments.

A straw man is not a reasonable question, it's a misrepresentation of the opponents argument to attack the persons legitimacy, without ever actually making a counterpoint. It doesn't deserve a response, and the down votes I'm sure are from people who agree that your attempted straw man was a fallacious argument.

You are asking a question which has no answer. What criteria do you use to determine a defensive newspaper? You see, it's fallacious to attribute human action to objects. They are only tools, and people are either defensive or offensive depending on how they use tools in context to their situation.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

perfect example of him saying

perfect example of him saying the right things at a prayer breakfast and everyone jumping on the bandwagon only to find out that he doesn't really think you as a person have any rights. (guns in urban areas and experimental drugs) um, thats not a bandwagon I'll be riding.

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

my ears

pricked a couple of times while listening to him the other day it CPAC.

edit: I'm willing to hang him out to dry for a couple of years and see what he turns into but.. I guess a big rock at the top of a heap has no where to roll but downhill? time will tell

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

ecorob's picture

For all of you now who say, "I told you so"...

This is for you...

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Have a nice day.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Has Ben

He is done. Rand is all we got for 2016, sorry.

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
Voltaire