If I find someone better I will vote for them. If he is the lesser of the evils I will vote for him. The country MUST vote in somebody I would rather have a say in who it will be. Personally, I'm a huge 2nd Amendment Supporter so I'm thinking Ben won't win my vote. But against Hillary? Maybe.

Personally? I'm going to expect a LOT more from the PotUS than the same-ol' game of flip-flop and pander. I'm fed up, and damnit, I don't have to take it - or vote for it.

Remember - the lesser of 2 (or 17) evils is still evil. And at this point, the field is thinning itself out by itself - as far as my vote goes.

All it did... was tell me Dr. Carson was a politician first, and will say whatever he needs to say to get a voter base behind him. Sure, his current line "sounds" good... but it makes me wonder, then, what his REAL intents and feelings are. And if I have to wonder about a person in that manner, then I sure as hades don't want that person in the White House...

I definitely agree to be cautious but I wonder which stance was true. Was his original assertion true or his latest? Either way, it is deceptive, phony political maneuvering and I HATE it! What are you going to do though? It comes with the office.

if the people don't have weapons, the govt will increasingly
consider their votes irrelevant, IMHO. -- j
.

Oh, now that he is politically experienced he can lie about his position and sheep will vote for him.
What a load of rubbish.
I wouldn't for that lying scum if he was the only one running.
Come on, blarman, don't be naive.

All of these fools stick their fingers in their mouths to wet them and then hold them up to see which way the winds are blowing and change their stance accordingly. It works while hunting but is completely meaningless while campaigning.

If every man and every woman could shoot a 45 caliber bullet from their index finger I believe the crime rate would plummet faster than the second hand on a clock.

While I agree about phony ploy changes or 'amending my thoughts' credo of politicians..I find Mr Trump just as phony...How honest is it to hire people to attend speeches and hold signs at rallies like NYC and NH just to point out the two known events he did this. Ne's not any more honest then Obama, McCain, Hillary, Rubio, Cruz or Jindal

"We the people" have NO role in the so-called "balance of powers". Calling America a "Republic" makes not enough difference to matter. The Force with which all GOVERNments are endowed has always brought them to fail.

We are brainwashed to worship this system which has brought us to tyrannical collectivism, yet feeling so "privileged" to be "citizens". Our Constitution, ballyhooed to be the best ever devised, created this GOVERNment of Force which has been turned against all humanity.

My website has plenty more; you might start here:
http://no-ruler.net/3460/failures-of-...

What did Rand change his mind on?

I think that you are correct about attitude. There is a common theme in some adventure serials of the rich guy who imports victims to 'hunt' on some lonely island. The correct response is to turn and hunt the hunters. If you stop acting like a victim, you are as scary as hell - because you have the ability to step outside your assigned role. I think you are probably correct in the effect of your turning on the knife-wielders. Pity about the beer.

I like weapons in general (and unarmed combat too), and would love to be able to legally carry a sword cane, but it is a felony in CA. A regular cane is legal though, and I can wreak havoc with that.

Jan

If Rand Paul gets to change his mind on some issues, then why can't Carson?

They could, but we'd need a president who appoints two or three good members first.

I can't think of any other way the Republic can be salvaged before it becomes a banana republic.

You find lots of bladed weapons at Renaissance festivals, too, but that isn't the context I was addressing. There are some very effective weapons for self defense, such as batons and chains that are banned in most states. Personally I'd like to be able to carry a sword cane, with at least an 18" blade concealed, but that may be my past experience with saber fencing influencing my "druthers."

My only experience with "armed" self defense involved assailants with a knife (both times), and I made effective use of a 2x4 on one occasion, and a quart bottle of beer on the other (a dear price for a struggling college student). The "shock and awe" of a potential victim turning aggressor is usually enough to discourage a thug, and non-firearm weapons don't usually require much preparation or thought to use.

Never was a viable candidate for me. He'll drift off the radar (already is...).

Actually, my friends and I are quite concerned about the right to wear swords. The current CA law, which was written with the advice of an ex-narc agent (who happens to also be one of the worlds premier swordsmiths) lets one carry a sword as a non-concealable weapon as long as it is in the context of theatre or reenactment. So just be sure to have a doublet in your trunk too, and the swords are OK.

The non-concealable part is interesting. When you wear a 3 foot long broadsword, it is often invisible because you are wearing it under a full length greatcloak. But since a sword is defined as non-concealable, it does not matter - it is considered to be worn 'in the open' even if it is not in sight due to the cloak.

Jan

I support the other doctor in this race, Rand Paul, but Carson is an intelligent, thoughtful soul for whom I have a lot of respect. I have no doubt that as a neurosurgeon, Dr. Carson has more understanding of unstable personalities than most of us, and that may be affecting his discussion of the second amendment.

One thing I almost never hear from second amendment rights advocates is the right to bear arms other than firearms. No one seems to effectively object to restrictions on everything from brass knuckles to swords, even though the second amendment does not restrict the right only to guns. It would be interesting to hear someone advocate challenging those restrictions as unconstitutional.

The best thing a conservative politician can do is to oppose any legislation banning the use of firearms in any way. Let the states hash it out, and let the liberals keep hollering down the canyon. All they'll get is the echo of the other libs who agree with them and the automatic opposition of everyone who treasures the 2nd amendment.

I could not help but think of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre when Carson essentially said how much safer it is to own a semiautomatic rifle out in rural areas.
The cannibals in that movie did not have any guns at all, though they lived out in the middle of nowhere.
Neither did the kill count that showed up in a van.

He failed the "RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part.

I hear the lowly 22 is actually the choice of the modern thuggist... or whatever the stolen gun fence has to offer on a given day.

He's playing the "play to your target" game... Any time a politician "changes" or "amends stance on something, it's a ploy to coerce people into voting for him and keep him in the race. I fully believe his original assertion will stand... regardless of the fawning the media is giving him... and what he changes his story to in an attempt to get more supporters.

That's what makes Trump such a viable candidate - he speaks from his heart, not a re-edited script to appeal to the sheep. That honesty - and lack of pandering to an audience - gives him an appeal that, while occasionally way off in left field, resonates with the current crock, er, crop of ever-bendy politicos. You may not like what he says, but you know it's genuine.

One of the players on the left is doing the same thing... and people on that side are starting to flock to him. I think people are sick of the political BS.

Let's not forget that Obama has ruined all "hope" that another negro might become president for at least a generation. Carson is not a good collectivist, so that's a second reason he'll never be president. Sorry about that!

That SCOTUS, or any other branch of our GOVERNment, might "save America" is totally off the wall.

I don't trust his stance, I happen to like my semi auto handguns, shotguns, and rifles. Whether I want to use a cowboy revolver or something more reliable is of no concern to him.

As a doctor, I'm sure most of the gunshot wounds from the ghetto are more likely to be caused by a $99 Phoenix .380 than a $900 Sig Sauer

The only argument over that is, what does it mean. Does it mean the right to go hunting, or recreational use, does it mean self defense, or does it mean to hold the gov't in check. Does it mean all of the above.

If it includes, "hold the gov't in check", then should it restrict what you can own to achieve that? A ballistic missile is impractical for someONE to own so I really don't think that's a concern. But, a fully automatic weapon shouldn't be restricted.

No one wants to truly have that discussion. They only want to discuss the types of arms one can have. The fact is, if this went to SCOTUS, they would have to answer that the 2nd amendment was intended to hold the gov't in check and as such, the civilian population has the right to the same capability as the military.

Then there's the other concern. that SCOTUS says it means self defense and as such the arms can be restricted.

So, we avoid the challenge ad settle for what we have, this endless battle as to what was intended.