Conservative favorite Dr. Ben Carson offered a cautionary argument for the kinds of weapons that people should be allowed to have in their homes.
During a speech at the National Press Club on Wednesday Carson said that there are some weapons that should stay out of civilian hands.
“I think there’s some weapons that probably are not appropriate, like tanks. And I’m not sure that people should have a rocket-launcher in their bedroom,” Carson said. “But conventional weapons, I don’t have any problem with.”
“The Second Amendment is an essential part of our constitution,” he continued. “It’s there for a reason because it would give the populace the ability to assist the military in case of a foreign invasion but more importantly it’s there because if we ever have a rogue government that wants to dominate the people the people will have the ability to defend themselves. We must always protect that right.”
Carson’s comments came less than a week after a horrific shooting in California that left seven dead, including the shooter. Since then there’s been discussion of a new legislative push for gun control, even if that seems unlikely.
Carson continued that there should at least be a conversation about assault weapons and the Second Amendment.
“However, what I have said, which some people have misinterpreted, is that in places where there’s a lot of crime with assault weapons that keeping the Second Amendment on the table and always protecting it, we should be able to engage in conversations about it,” Carson continued. “What can we agree on that doesn’t violate the Second Amendment but that provides some degree of protection for our citizens. Unless we can talk about these kinds of things we will never succeed with these kinds of things.”
“RHINO!!” - Tea Party response
Well color me surprised.
" but more importantly it’s there because if we ever have a rogue government that wants to dominate the people the people will have the ability to defend themselves. We must always protect that right."
No, it is most emphatically not there for that reason.
This is a relatively new interpretation that is being pushed and has no validity whatsoever.
These clowns should read Nocera: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/opinion/nocera-right-to-bear-arms-means-this.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Careful, Ben. That’s a pretty slippery slope.