Dr. Ben Carson to Retire, Political Career Next?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I think his response reflects his assessment of working in the city of Baltimore-- one of the most violent cities in America when it comes to gun violence.

Both Baltimore and Chicago have the highest murder rate and gun-related deaths in the nation...yet they also have some of the toughest gun control laws.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Realistically, is there any gun that could adequately defend us against our government if for whatever reason, our government decided to become our enemy?

The honest answer is no.

Obviously, the answer is no. However, the Constitution does not contain a clause stating that the 2nd Amendment should be null and void in the event military tech supercedes civilian arms. Respectfully, I don't know what that has to do with anything. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the government had cannons and warships. The Minutemen had muskets. There was never, nor will there ever be a level playing field between military and citizen's arms.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

While I am a 2nd amendment proponent in today's discussion of "guns," the issue is not so easily cut and dry in our current urban situations. His answer reflects that reality.

The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous, and it is definitely not subjective to location.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Question for you. Do you think it would be against our Constitutional protection to allow the police to stop and frisk you at their will, whenever they saw you walking somewhere and thought you had the potential for being a lawbreaker?

It is against the Constitution. The 4th Amendment does not allow for this. Also, the way this is worded, "...thought you had the potential for being a lawbreaker" smells of profiling, which most law enforcement entities ban.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Probably why we should consider people out of the political culture that is incestuous and full of corruption. If everyone was term limited to 6 years we would see a lot of fresh new ideas and responsible behavior emerge out of our government. No reelections. Everyone gets six years to get the job done and then they move on. Stagger elections so that every other year we are voting on president, then in two years Congressmen, then in two years Senators. Supreme Court justices should get ten years and then done. Make it illegal for anyone serving in those offices to later have a career in any lobbyist capacity after they've served. It would eliminate a lot of corruption and cronyism.

the only problem with all this pipe dream nonsense is that the people affected by these proposed changes are the same people who are needed to enact. do you really think that congress will vote to limit their own careers, limit their own financial prospects and 50 states to ratify constitutional changes to elections? you really need to be more realistic with something like campaign finance reform.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

the only problem with all this pipe dream nonsense is that the people affected by these proposed changes are the same people who are needed to enact. do you really think that congress will vote to limit their own careers, limit their own financial prospects and 50 states to ratify constitutional changes to elections? you really need to be more realistic with something like campaign finance reform.

I didn't say it would happen, but that's what needs to happen. You really believe in campaign finance reform? They're never going to change that either.