Reloader's Nest Forum
Reloader's Nest Forum
Home | Profile | Active Topics | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 Gun politics
 Herman Cain on Second Amendment Rights?

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.

Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List

* Forum Code is ON
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]


T O P I C    R E V I E W
Shastaboat Posted - Oct 14 2011 : 11:46:48
Has he made any official statement?
15   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Fred_C_Dobbs Posted - Nov 01 2011 : 20:35:51
More sermonizing from the Right Reverend Cain (the first one is a repeat).

I get the very strong impression this man really wants to put teeth back into 10A. I can't think of anything that would go further toward putting the statists onto their back foot and preserving individual rights.
Fred_C_Dobbs Posted - Oct 28 2011 : 12:39:58
Questions of this sort will continue to come up from now until the election. That's because the press habitually asks political candidates veiled or nuanced questions in the hope that the candidate's reply won't be quite so clever as their question and they'll get juicy story out of the exchange. But Cain doesn't seem to know how to think or speak like a politician, so there isn't a lot of subtlety or vagary in his replies. He tends to give pointed answers even to boobytrapped questions. Which only can work against him if you've bought in to the deliberately treacherous premise of the IEQ (improvised exploding question).

This past week he was asked one of those "what if" questions about abortion. Just like the question about gun control, his answer -- in my words, not his -- was that the question itself is irrelevant because it assumes -- erroneously -- that the US Constitution gives the federal government and/or POTUS purview over the states in that regard. Only he didn't bother to frame the answer that way because he presumes that anyone who earns his living as a political reporter should understand that the US Constitution imposes limits on all branches of government, and it behooves the occupants of all federal offices to abide by those limits.

But the point is lost on members of the state-run media, which is why Cain's position gets (deliberately?) misrepresented by the press.

If you want the straight skinny, I'd suggest you visit Cain's web site and read his unfiltered views.
Shastaboat Posted - Oct 24 2011 : 00:30:33
You know the basic income tax law says Congress can levy an income tax. All the other verbage in the Internal Revenue Code if concerning special exemptions!
Fred_C_Dobbs Posted - Oct 22 2011 : 15:08:02
An expression comes to mind that I first heard at an unnamed US government-run school for spooks. Come exam time, the teachers always said,

"Do you know the difference between theory and reality? ...

... Theory is testable."

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach (or take a job in the public sector).

I'll take Herman Cain's experience with reality and proved track record over those nattering naysayers in the state-run media any day.

Besides being the most regressive form of taxation possible, an income tax is a form of indentured servitude, and indentured servitude is only a slightly less virulent form of slavery. We need to be rid of every last vestige of the evil that is income tax and 9-9-9 is a step in the right direction.
cfvickers Posted - Oct 21 2011 : 19:43:21
Fred that turns everyone into noone. How dare you stipulate that people should educate themselves about a subject before they have a consequential opinion.
Fred_C_Dobbs Posted - Oct 21 2011 : 16:17:36
Who is this everyone? How many of them have university degrees in mathematics and have been successful corporate executives?
cfvickers Posted - Oct 20 2011 : 19:15:37
Maybe as 9-9-4. anyone complaining about paying more taxes in low income brackets is frivolous. They just wouldn't get a huge check at tax season. and it would take out less of their paycheck up front.
wallacem Posted - Oct 20 2011 : 15:54:57
Everyone has about realized that his 9-9-9 plan does not work, and it seems he really was the "flavor of the week". He is out of it as bad as I hate to say it. His only chance is to abandon the 9-9-9 plan and blame it on his advisors, and change to the "fair tax" idea. He could still get elected with that platform
Fred_C_Dobbs Posted - Oct 19 2011 : 12:31:12
That makes sense on a lot of fronts. One of the problems with politics in the age of multimedia is that the politician with the biggest war chest almost always wins. That's been the case since the Kennedy-Nixon debates when the radio listeners (people still listened to radio for news in those days) thought Nixon won. TV viewers thought Kennedy had won. Why? Nixon declined to have TV make-up applied and his naturally heavy 5 o'clock shadow made him look kinda menacing.

In part because of that, I've been thinking for quite a while that it would be impossible for a politician to rise to that level -- and for a viable presidential campaign to get any "traction" -- unless that candidate had a long history of indebtedness for political favors. And repaying all those debts typically leads to the compromise of core principles.

That's why I had such high hopes for Steve Forbes (in addition to the abolishing IRS thing), because he had no markers to cover. Cain is in that same boat except that Cain has one distinct advantage over Forbes: he has a personality, and the ability to stir people a good way.

I'm not convinced he'll get my vote yet but I do see he has some material advantages over the other candidates and don't (yet) see any deal-breakers to a Herman Cain presidency.
Hockeynick39 Posted - Oct 18 2011 : 18:44:27
Originally posted by Shastaboat

At least he is not a career politician

Shastaboat Posted - Oct 18 2011 : 12:29:09
At least he is not a career politician
Hockeynick39 Posted - Oct 18 2011 : 11:57:30
I've been doing some reading on him and am pretty sure will be voting for him over the other candidates. As usual, still have to pick the best turd out of the toilet bowl that is presidential politics. Not making any sleight, just commenting on the BS that we have been enduring for so long.
cfvickers Posted - Oct 18 2011 : 11:37:56
I saw some where where he said "I'm rather partial to my guns and my bible" If it wasn't bs, I am good with him. Right now I seriously prefer him to the other candidates.
Hockeynick39 Posted - Oct 18 2011 : 09:38:59
Different States for different folks. In NY (not the city, that's a whole other country down there), the CCW and standard pistol permits are issued by county. I currently have the plastic credit card type and some counties still have the paper type (which is supposed to be completely changed by 2012). The other problem with a reciprocity among all states for a pistol permit, is that currently NYS does not recognize any other state permits. Why, I don't know, it just does (kind of like the no hunting with a semi-auto rifle in PA). Other states require that you show proof of how you can operate your pistol through a course of fire, this I like, but NYS does not require this. The only requirement NYS has for the CCW is a criminal background check. This is what pisses me off about NYS, other states actually have people that know how to use a pistol in different situations because they are required to do so by law prior to being provided a CCW and NYS just does a background check and does not recognize the fact that someone from another state can actually use their weapon. This is what happens when 51% of a states' population lives in a 30 mile tract of space and governs the rest of the state that they have no knowledge ofor care that it even exists.
Sensai Posted - Oct 18 2011 : 09:14:59
What he actually said was that the states should control concealed carry recipricality. I agree that states should control concealed carry permit issuance, but not recipricality. It should be just like drivers licenses, if I have a license in my state it should be valid in any other state. But even that is a compromise, I actually don't believe that ANY permit to carry should be required anywhere within the U.S. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

Reloader's Nest Forum © 2016 ReloadersNest Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.05 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.06