Home/Gun News/It's Settled: Cain Is No Friend Of Gun Owners
It's Settled: Cain Is No Friend Of Gun Owners
Alex KauffmanNovember 22, 2011
I have been arguing for some time that Herman Cain is no friend of gun owners.
At this Saturday's Thanksgiving Family Forum, Cain made some comments on the nature of government authority and individual rights which, I believe, cement my arguments about his stance on gun rights.
Frank Luntz asks Cain to clarify his bizarre Tenth Amendment stance. Watch Cain stumble through his definition of the word "wrong" (these videos are pre-set to play at the correct time):
So, a federal mandate to overturn segregation was acceptable because segregation was "wrong" (and I agree, it absolutely was). But a federal mandate to remove barriers to gun ownership doesn't meet Cain's "wrongness" test?
Now watch Cain explain his definition of equal treatment:
Cain believes that an acceptable use of federal authority is to ensure "the common good" and to "level the playing field" and promote "fairness and respect" (these terms make me cringe, as they are collectivist buzzwords, but that's beside the point). However, equal treatment of individual rights apparently doesn't include equal treatment of a person's right of self-defense, in Cain's opinion.
Now watch Cain describe the justification for using force:
He believes that a person has a right to use force in self-defense, which is terrific, but since (in Cain's opinion) a state may deny the individual the tools to engage in lawful self-defense, the right is rendered meaningless.
There are two possible ways to interpret Cain's conflicting messages:
1) Cain doesn't really understand the legal and political issues involved in gun ownership, and so he falls back on "states' rights" rhetoric; or,
2) Cain is lukewarm (at best) on private gun ownership.
This certainly wouldn't be the first time Cain has tried to use two diametrically-opposed sets of rhetoric (and failed miserably at it). He did so with his comments on abortion– trying to use both the "life begins at conception" and the "woman's choice" talking points.
However, Cain's stance on abortion was already well-known and crystal clear. He made the "woman's choice" remark once, and it was clearly a case of him trying to use incompatible rhetoric.
On gun rights, however, it hasn't been "just once". He's used the "states' rights" rhetoric multiple times, and he continues to stick to it.
Now watch this video: Cain is directly asked about his "states' rights" argument and gun rights:
Question: "Do you support states' rights to regulate firearms?"
Cain: "That's a loaded question."
Excuse me? It's a "loaded question" to ask for a definite yes-or-no?
So, let's review:
Herman Cain doesn't support National Right-To-Carry.
Herman Cain doesn't support "federal mandates" to ensure gun rights, because state gun laws are not "wrong".
Herman Cain supports allowing states to make whatever gun laws they choose.
Herman Cain uses tough rhetoric on gun ownership and self-defense, but resists answering detailed questions on gun ownership (reference the video above, the Wolf Blitzer interview, the New Hampshire question, etc.)
Herman Cain has been using the totally incorrect "states' rights" rhetoric for at least eight months now, and has had numerous opportunities to clarify his position on gun rights- but has not availed himself of any of these opportunities.
Ladies and Gentlemen, given these facts, it's time to put this one to bed: Herman Cain does not support your right to keep and bear arms in any meaningful way. He clearly enjoys his own right to do so (as he said in New Hampshire, "I have six (guns)… and that ain't enough"), and for those who provide his protection. But not yours or mine. In this regard, he's no better than Mitt Romney.
gun rights Herman Cain The 2012 Election The Second Amendment
Alex Kauffman
Illinois Plaintiffs Say Restrictive New Gun Law Is 'Irreconcilable With The Traditions Of The American People'
California's Share Of Mass Shootings Remains High Despite Strict Gun Laws
New ATF Rule Sets The Stage To Classify Legal Gun Owners As Criminals
Blue State Residents Are (Literally) Up In Arms Following Sweeping Gun Control Legislation
WillofLa says:
I'll tell you what Cain's problem is about gun control and an individual's right to self-defence. It's that he's Black. And because he's Black he is accutely aware of the problems with guns and Black people shooting each other with guns. He believes that since it's such a tragety that innocent Black children who've been shot accidentally in drive-by's, he has already taken the position long ago that the way to prevent these innocent deaths is to take the guns away from the people. And since he also has to take a position that is not "racist" and all that other crap about race, he has to make his opinion about gun control, or more specifically innocent deaths caused by having a gun on you or immediate access to a gun, like, in your car, he has to include everyone in what he believes should be a Federal or State law, which is no guns for anyone.
Now, if he were intellectually honest he would forget about all that racist crap and say that if you are a Black man, no matter how young, if you are a Black male and use a gun in committing a crime you will be put to death and I'm not talking about years of trials either. You'll be tried very quickly and in a matter of weeks you'll be put to death for your crime. If Cain was honest he would pick out those who should not have access to guns and that is young Black men of the age between 16 and 30 years of age. That is the age of most gang bangers range in where they use guns the most. I don't know about all this 25, and 28 year olds jazz, I'm putting it at 30 and that covers them all. NO Black will be able to obtain a firearm between those ages unless they have gone through a police training program and have the paper work to prove you are a lawful person. Then you can buy a gun. But I would also include giving the police the right to stop any Black male walking on the street especially in a group of more than two. Also the police would be able to stop cars with Black youths in them and the cars would be searched for guns, and the occupants as well.
That's what Cain needs to have said. He also has a Black opinion about abortion as well because of the problem with Black's getting abortions a lot. He knows it's a problem with Blacks, and he'd like to see it come to an end but he also knows why Black women abort these babies, and it has alot to do with drugs and alcohol. He knows that if they don't want the baby because they are on dope or drink alot and don't want any kid. So he has to do a careful balancing act between what is the right to do, and taking in consideration how his people are. That's it. White people don't have all these issue's with their people doing things alot that they shouldn't be doing…….all the time! They just don't seem to understand that what they are doing is morally wrong. It's like they really don't care about obeying the law, mainly because they think it's "White man's law". And that is the truth. Just ask any Black what he thinks about certain laws and they will tell you it's a White man's law that they don't have to obey, and were made just to hold Blacks down. So that in part, is why Blacks continue to act like they do, and Cain knows it.
Somebody like Newt wouldn't know about the life of a Black because he's not Black. And that is the issue. Some laws just need to be "race specific" and if that race doesn't like it, then to bad.