Comment: Thanks for posting what the OP sorely lacked.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I wouldn't vote for him either (see in situ)

Thanks for posting what the OP sorely lacked.

Personally, I find Carson not weak, but quite strong and sane on the Second Amendment. He supportively regurgitated it unabashedly. If you found him weak or nonsensical in his answers to Glenn's follow-up questions, you are opining in a realm beyond the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment suggests more, but at the heart of popular notion in question is that the federal government shall not infringe upon a person's right to bear arms. Some hardcore Second Amendment enthusiasts interpret it to imply that the federal government will aid in protecting the right of a person within the U.S. to bear arms anywhere in the U.S. thus potentially clashing with any other jurisdictional structure. Pay close attention. Carson doesn't even deny that [not that he reveals evidence that he supports that hardcore notion]. He employs the proper tact of throwing the determination of what are suitable "arms" into parochial means. Sure, it's not a perfect tact, but it seems to be the best humanity has come up with through the ages. It's utterly Jeffersonian. Weapons of protection have changed through the ages, and hey, why do you suppose militias were mentioned in the amendment? It wasn't a willy-nilly proposition. Side arms are certainly arms. Are bazookas also arms? If I'm allowed to carry a pistol but not a bazooka, am I still being allowed to bear arms? If your next door neighbor placed land mines in his yard, would you not feel the urge to consult with the other neighbors on your street and perhaps together approach him about removing the mines. I would. I have children and dogs. I also enjoy the neighborhood deer and fox.