Does Ben Carson REALLY Get The Purpose Of The Second Amendment?

Does Ben Carson REALLY Get The Purpose Of The Second Amendment?

Dr. Ben Carson is exploring his future in politics, and is certainly teasing that he might be considering a 2016 Presidential run as a Republican primary candidate. He's worried some with his comments earlier this year, where he suggested that gun laws might be applied differently in rural areas than in urban areas. He hasn't backed off that statement, but he seems to understand the broader purpose of the Second Amendment and isn't afraid to mention it, which is a relative rarity for a modern politician in either party. That said, his decidedly a "nuanced" approach, as he revealed while answering a direct question on the subject recently:
Carson made his comments on May 23 as the guest host on the conservative talk radio program, the Sean Hannity Show. A caller had asked Carson for his views on the Second Amendment and how that constitutional right was being treated by the Obama administration. The caller said, "I've heard some conflicting things from people and I'm curious what your thoughts are on the Second Amendment and what this administration is doing to gut it, right now?" Dr. Carson said, "Well, it's always good to hear it from the horse's mouth. First of all, I am a very strong believer in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there for a very good reason, and I think our Founding Fathers were very wise to recognize that the populace could be a tremendous aid to the military. They could form their own militia; they would be a tremendous deterrent for invasion." "But the real reason that they put it there is recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves," he said. "I would never allow the Second Amendment to be jeopardized."
That sounds great so far, but here comes the nuance (the dreaded "but"):
"I do believe that it is necessary for people to begin to have rational discussions about things – what kinds of weapons," said Carson.  "You know, I don't think tanks, for instance, would be a very good thing to be keeping in your garage. But you certainly should have access to any kind of weapon that you want for recreational purposes or to protect yourself. There really shouldn't be a lot of restrictions on that." He continued,  "You do need to have a discussion about how we deal with situations where there is a tremendous amount of crime and easy access to the kinds of with a weapons that can create a lot of damage quickly. But that needs to be done in context of always preserving Second Amendment rights."
But where does Carson draw the line between weapons for "any kind of weapon that you want for recreational purposes or to protect yourself," and "situations where there is a tremendous amount of crime and easy access to the kinds of weapons that can create a lot of damage quickly"? The firearms most useful in the traditional Second Amendment role that Carson seems to recognize are the common AR-15, AK-47, and other magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles typically equipped with a 20-30 round magazines. Semi-automatic handguns standard-capacity magazines of 13-20 rounds also fit this role. These and other weapons are the contemporary  weapons of military utility, the "terrible implement[s] of the soldier [that] are the birth-right of an American" as Founding Father Tench Coxe noted. They are our modern muskets, and as such, should be the most protected firearms in existence. As it so happens, they are also among the most versatile firearms on the planet, used in various formal and informal shooting competitions and to protect ourselves. How does Carson—or any other politician—reconcile their claimed support of the Second Amendment with a desire to  "deal with situations where there is a tremendous amount of crime and easy access to the kinds of with a weapons that can create a lot of damage quickly"? Most gun owners can accept the broader statements Carson is making. We want to maintain access to those arms useful against criminals and despots (and yes, effective against targets and for harvesting game animals), and we would of course like to get guns out of the hands of criminals (both in and out of government). The devil, of course, is in the details.   An honest person has to come to grips with the reality that until we radically change the underlying cultural acceptance of using guns to solve problems, there will always be violent crime, with or without guns. Carson seems willing and able to take on both the African-American urban street culture that is the root of so much of the day-to-day violence, as he pulled himself out of that culture to become what he is today. He also seems willing to take on the toxic entertainment culture that thrives on the constant exploitation of gratuitous violence. If he does decide to run, we need to get a better explanation of precisely how and what he means to do to combat criminals using guns, without compromising to Second Amendment rights.

* * *

As gun owners, we have a decisions to contemplate as we face another Presidential election in 2016. The emerging 2016 Democrat Party presidential candidates are all on the far left side of that party's spectrum, a trend that has been on-going for decades. They are, for the most part, on the socialist to communist scale, and are virulently anti-gun, without any exceptions that readily come to mind. If you are a "single issue" voter on gun rights, then the Democrat Party as it now stands  has utterly abandoned you. If you take a broader approach to your politics and are a Democrat who values the Second Amendment to some degree and the specific purpose for which it was created, you're going to have a very difficult choice. The simple fact of the matter is that the DNC has shifted radically off-kilter, and seems to value government for government's sake over the best interests of the citizenry. Depending on your individual views and how you rank gun rights and liberty among them, 2016 is likely to be a "hold your nose when you vote" or "sit this one out" election. Among the Republican candidates, there appear to be no Second Amendment absolutists, and most of the candidates are for big government, just like the Democrats, just to a different degree. More than a few of the contenders are very "squishy" middle of the road "Fudd" candidates that seem to think that the Second Amendment is about hunting. Third party candidates—libertarians, Constitutionalists, greens, etc—are self-evidently non-viable on the national scale. If you are a single-issue voter on gun rights, 2016 is going to be yet another year where the Presidential pickings appear to be slim. I suspect that once again, it is in the House of Representatives and Senate and state races where we have the best chances of preserving and expanding rights.

40 thoughts on “Does Ben Carson REALLY Get The Purpose Of The Second Amendment?

  1. I think he does and in addressing violence, he will attack it with the type of precision and determination that only a brain surgeon has.

  2. I have the right to bear Arms. Nowhere in the second Amendment to the constitution do my forefathers limit the type or number of arms. In this day and age with crime the way it is, a gun is a necessary protection. Do people really believe that a convicted felon that wants a gun will obey the law and refrain from getting a gun? It has been my PERSONAL experience that they don't care…

  3. It's pretty clear from the Constitutional Debates, Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that the 2nd Amendment was not to apply to "crewed" weapons, cannon at that time but there are a fairly wide range of such weapons now. So I disagree with the suggestion that NO limits are allowed. However, if I can hold it in my hands and fire it, then it should be legal for me to possess. For that matter, I should be able to mail order it to my house. The whole FFL system is unconstitutional and should be scrapped. The solution to bad men with guns is having a lot more good men with guns, as the Founding Fathers appreciated.

  4. John P Weatherman The constitution is quite clear as far as my interpretation.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    No matter what the debate before or after the constitution was written, the second Amendment has not been repealed, and the way it reads I am allowed to use whatever weapon I choose to defend myself.

  5. Steven LeRoy Fast Jr. Personally I tend to use and originalist approach to interpretation. The government has only those powers intentionally granted it by the people. Therefore the intent at the time of adoption is critical to proper interpretation. With a 200 year time frame, there is also language shift involved, which makes me less than comfortable with using "modern" perspective on what was passed. That's what gives the "living Constitution" that has all but destroyed the very purpose for which the Constitution was passed!

    That aside, the Amendment itself states "to bear arms". I suppose I would be open to considering personal "crewed" weapons, if you demonstrated the ability to carry and use them, but I am really not aware of any that meet that limitation. The vast majority these days would bear you, not the other way around. Of course I would like to see a much more robust system of State Guards for heavy weapons in the hands of the militia at need, but that's a separate issue.

    I am NOT saying your view is wrong BTW, just trying to clarify the basis of my own. I do think "No restrictions at all" to "all non-crewed weapons" is the full range of discussion allowed by the 2nd Amendment. :)

  6. John P Weatherman that's what's great about this country as long as she lasts.. We have the right to have different viewpoints :-)

  7. Most cannon in the revolution that were not captured from the British were supplied by private citizens who could afford them, such as Thomas Nelson, and other prominent citizens.

  8. Christopher Leete True, but from what I understand they were generally held in common, not considered personal arms that were kept in an individual's home. I am open to correction however if someone can point me to documents indicating that wasn't the case.

  9. How effective is a 21st century militia when they can be hit with a missile from 10,000 ft in the air or hit with armor piercing rounds from a drone? With ground penetrating radar that goes to 100+ feet and bunker buster bombs where do citizen hide when their government turns on them? What tools do a militia have access to in order to protect people from that? Debating ARs and AKs seem trivial in light of the current technology, a tank in the garage will explode, then you'll hear the sound of the missile hitting it.

  10. Very effective, Just look at how effective a 17th century militia has been in Afghanistan against our 21st century forces. Now take our citizenry which includes many highly experienced veterans of our modern military, add in all kinds of modern education and training and don't think for a second that those drones and missiles would be rather ineffective. Particularly when those manning those weapons refused to fire on their fellow citizens. Every member of the military has sworn an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies. Foreign and Domestic and many already recognize who the real domestic enemies are and would not fire on their fellow citizens.

    Don't think for a second that our highly educated populace wouldn't figure out real quick how to take out those very slow and noisy drones that carry weapons. There is a large RC enthusiast population in this country, those RC planes can be quickly and easily re-purposed into guided missiles to take out the slow drones. Drones are only effective when the threat has no air defense capabilities. You'll note that we are not using them in Syria, where they would be shot out of the sky with ease.

  11. Our Founding Fathers knew and understood that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It affirms and protects a pre-existing, basic human right.

    US Constitution. ALL of it. No compromise. No surrender.

  12. He understands the intent is to keep the government honest but again goes against it with asinine comments. How am I supposed to defend myself when even the local PD has military grade equipment?

  13. I'm still wary of him and as such he won't get my vote in the Primary. I will not have a "conversation" on my rights, we tried that before and we got screwed (NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, FOPA of 1986, AWB of 94, etc.).

  14. The 2014 Senate and House elections are more important than the 2016 presidential election. Particularly the Senate. Face it . . . . unless there are health reasons to keep her from running, Hilary Clinton WILL be the next president.

  15. I agree in your first part – the Senate and House, where gun legislation comes from is more important. I disagree however about Hillary, we are still a year from serious contention and there is rumblings of other Democratic darlings. I have my eye on Elizabeth Warren, she scares me. Hillary has too much baggage even for Democrats and her age is a big factor (the McCain issue) This isn't a prediction but I'm not going to go as far to say she has it in the bag.

  16. Damn! Gotta put my tank away! Rand/Carson or Allen/Rand or Allen/Carson in 2016.

  17. Any time ANYONE be it a politician or a wannabe politician says things like
    "we need to have a discussion" or "reasonable restrictions" or "justifiable need" the issue is not whether they UNDERSTAND the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment but one of adhering to it. And the utterance of such phrases is a very good indicator that said person has no use for, no respect for and does not intend to abide by the 2nd Amendment. Dr. Carson's language indicates that to him the right is not actually a right but a privilege to be tweaked and altered as he or others see fit. This disqualifies Dr. Carson from holding ANY public office EVER.

  18. Didn't we already enjoy the novelty of electing a black guy with no political experience to speak of?

    Let's focus on the government banning the sale and manufacture of the materials to make ammo!

    Molon labe

  19. Obummer is the beginning of the end to this country, and if Hilary becomes the President she will be the rest of the 16 years on the road to hell, She will become the last nail in our coffin, O and by the way mark who would you trust to change the Constitution and what rights are you willing to give up and what rights would you like to keep, I think we should leave it like it is and count our Blessings.

  20. Steve Dean Uhh have you looked at how many we've killed over there versus our casualties? I'd don't have to explain, that's exactly what we'd face.

  21. Steve Dean So your answer is the militia is to throw tens of thousands of militia men at a military that can mow them down 100 to 1, in an attempt to defeat them?

  22. Ken Parsons I am saying that the U.S. has used boots, tanks, jets, helicopters, special forces, aircraft carriers, smart bombs, drones, politics, cash, etc. and the Taliban is still causing casualties.

  23. Ken Parsons, have you considered the fact that We The People are not 10,000 miles from the homes of the government agents that would have to enforce the edicts of a tyrannical government? Even Jugears and his most dense minions have to realize if they start after us and ours, they and theirs are in the crosshairs. We know where they live, where their wives work, where their children or grandchildren go to school and/or work. The government starts in on us, we start in on them, and there isn't enough government shelter in the country to keep them safe if they endanger us.
    Comparing casualties over there with what would happen here is comparing apples and oranges. A Taliban terrorist in A-stan can't drop bridges into major cities over here. They can't disrupt the power grid over here, or water supply, or food supply. pResident Stompyfoot and the Left had better consider that the military have sworn an oath to the Constitution, not to Sir Golfsalot. One of those bunker-buster missiles could just as easily destroy the Whitehouse and the Capital building. An F/A-18 can take down Air Force 1 or Marine 1.
    A hunter from Colorado or Arizona or any other state can start taking out BLM, FBI, DEA, and ICE agents as easily as they can a wild hog, or a deer, or a bear. And, lest you forget, each time a government thug is taken out, his weapon and ammo will be collected. So, USDA had better rethink their request for automatic weapons.

  24. Michael Ball You make a broad assumption the armed services are on the civilians side. The 60s showed a uniform will shoot a civilian when ordered to.

  25. Some of the arms kept and born back then included cannon and privateer ships with many cannon. Both of which require a crew to serve it, and neither of which can one individual carry.

  26. There is absolutely nothing nuanced about the words "shall not be infringed", except to those of the left, especially the so-called "intellectuals".

  27. There is absolutely nothing nuanced about the words "shall not be infringed", except to those of the left, especially the so-called "intellectuals".

  28. Sorry, but I'm actually offended with the statement:
    "Carson seems willing and able to take on both the African-American urban street culture that is the root of so much of the day-to-day violence, as he pulled himself out of that culture to become what he is today. He also seems willing to take on the toxic entertainment culture that thrives on the constant exploitation of gratuitous violence"
    I am not here to dispute the current crime stats. I do realize that blacks, do disproportionatly break the law. However blacks comprise 13% of this country's population, but the media presents a picture that shows blacks as the perpetrators of 80-90% of this country's crime. Why is it that the other 87% of this country seem to never get their daily ration of crime presented? It would seem that the 87% of this country's crime should far overshadow that of the 13%…
    I'll start. bernie Madof wasn't black.(bad example). The "too big to fail" disaster wasn't orchestrated by black folk. A white, minnisota, couple (Chisholms) have been killing the welfare system big time, but because they aren't the stereotypical young, fat, black, urban dwelling, chicken-wing & a 40, foul-mouthed, baby factories that we are led to believe, their story will get very little exposure. I'm sure they'll find some rare "disorder" to attribute this to….
    I DO NOT DENY BLACK FOLKS ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY INVOLVED IN CRIME!!!!!
    Black folk are black folk. The only difference is the path we each choose to take. There are many factors that influence us, the same as white folks. Yeah, I;'m not gonna get stupid and start "name calling". I'm just saying, tha just a little part of your article elicited probabbly more from me than it should have.
    Other than that, I do see Dr Carson as a very shrewd operator. I do however, have doubts about his abillity to get down&dirty and servive. Rember Herman Cain was a really good candidate, but wilted when the smearing campagin started. I only hope that Dr. Carson can find the propper "Bulldog" to run things with.

Leave a Reply