The CPAC audience loved Dr. Ben Carson’s fired-up speech on Saturday. As always, Twitter buzz shifted to talk about 2016.

Carson is an accomplished man and he delivers a rousing speech. But it takes more than that to make a great president. TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch raises concerns about Carson’s position on gun rights.

See that, liberal tolerance mob? You can disagree with Carson without calling him an “Uncle Tom.” How ’bout that?

Here’s what Carson told Glenn Beck last year, via RCP:

It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it. If you live out in the country somewhere by yourself, I have no problem.

Carson offered more on his position a few months ago in an op-ed titled “Why did the founders give us the Second Amendment?”

  • Eric Johnson

    I fully agree with Dana! I’m very impressed with Dr Carson’s accomplishments and his willingness to speak out. But, limiting a Constitutional Right is the wrong thing to do.

    • ginny

      I would agree with you if Dr. Carson had staked out limiting our 2nd Amendment rights as one of his priorities as POTUS, but he has done no such thing. He has made it crystal clear that his priorities are 1) fixing healthcare, 2) getting our spending and economy back on track, 3) fixing our incredibly broken education system, and 4) getting our energy policy on track, developing all our natural resources (i.e. approving the Keystone Pipeline, drilling for natural gas, etc. on federal lands, etc,, which would not only make us energy independent in a few short years but would bankrupt Russia…again.) I also think he would like the opportunity to appoint conservative, strict constitutionalists to the SCOTUS. Not to mention doing everything he can to unite us as a people, greatly improve race relations, strengthen our military, support our allies around the world, take stances in support of Christians all over the planet that are being persecuted…..DO YOU REALLY THINK HE’S GOING TO MESS WITH GUN CONTROL…

      • Happy Dragon

        Just because he hasn’t said he’ll do it doesn’t mean he won’t. No politician is perfect, though, and we as Americans have to be happy with the best we can get. I don’t think Carson is necessarily the best we can get, but better him than a lot of other possibilities.

        • ginny

          Do what? Go after the 2nd Amendment? This man is anything but crazy; he’s written four books, has another one coming out in May…and he has a great deal of credibility. Plus he’s already spend a lifetime working in healthcare and education, and over a year now preaching about spending, energy, etc. He only talks about gay marriage, gun rights, etc. when he’s asked about it. Who else on earth would be able to inspire, unite and lead this country out of the economic and moral morass that we’re in???

          • Deb.AsAMom

            Who else? Scott Walker. Proven track record.
            Deeply admire Dr. Carson, but Second Amendment is fundamental right. We began a revolution over that right. It protects all other rights from tyranny.

          • rennyangel2

            Walker is my choice for his record and electability. A pres. needs some real exec. leadership ability or you get the incomprehensible mess of DC and developing in NYC with inexperienced ideologues and marxist mongers.

          • greenmanpostal

            Record and Electability? He was a senator for two years. Only won because even Mass. libs couldn’t stomach ACA. Then lost to Fauxcahontas! No thanks.

          • mjury

            You are talking about someone else. Maybe Scott Brown?

          • Liz

            Wrong Scott!!!!!

          • Dee Dunbar

            I think it will come down to Walker, he fits all categories! and he has a proven record.

          • SideTraKd

            I agree with you on his record. Not so much on his electability. The liberals have already demonized him and they’re already ready with their knives out to do it again.

            Carson, on the other hand..? It would be very interesting to see the media try to dismiss a pediatric neurosurgeon as stupid or hateful.

            Carson is a very inspiring guy. He is a brilliant and principled man, qualities that have been lacking in American politics for quite some time.

            People here, who are dismissing him for an off-the-cuff comment, on a subject that has nothing at all to do with federal politics, should really rethink this one through.

          • rennyangel2

            Carson’s own university dis-invited him from speaking at commencement because he said he saw no need for same-sex marriage, and called him hateful and discriminatory–demonizing much? The left attacks anyone who poses a threat. Carson has never been in politics and to throw him into a pres. race, which he has not said he is interested in, would be like throwing the Christians to the lions–they usually got massacred.

          • SideTraKd

            Hopefully, we will see. You may, in fact, prove to be right about it.

            But I would still love to give the media a chance to expose their own insane hypocrisy for all to see.

            Also, we’re not exactly talking about a lightweight, anti-intellectual here. I’m guessing that pediatric neurosurgery is somewhat more complicated than politics.

          • rennyangel2

            I agree our worst enemy is the media, more than even most ind. Dems. And instead of their super PAC, I wish the Koch Bros. had bought the Trib. Corp. and gotten the LA Times, Baltimore Sun, among a dozen other papers plus a Chic. tv station and a national cable station. WE NEED MORE MEDIA that is not just lying sacks of shyt.

          • SideTraKd

            I agree that the liberal lock on standard media sources needs to be smashed into a million pieces.

            But at least it is much better today than it used to be.

            And it is getting better.

          • moi2u

            “A subject that has nothing at all to do with federal politics” Gun control has nothing to do with federal politics, REALLY? Tell that to BO & his cronies in office who have been searching for ways to nullify the 2nd Amendment since day 1 in office! His stand on not upholding the Constitution (which is what the US president is sworn to do as well as everyone in Congress, is not an ‘off the cuff’ comment. In any event, it illustrates his shortsightedness when you consider the violent crime and murder rates in Chicago and DC where gun control manages to cost precious lives in numbers on a daily basis. We have a leftist president who is totally shortsighted (if not, deliberately trying to ruin the USA), we don’t need a right-winger of the same shortsighted ilk.

          • SideTraKd

            See, this is exactly what I was talking about overreacting and not thinking things through.

            Carson has NOT taken any “stand on not upholding the Constitution”.

            That is patently false, and you have to go through some pretty big leaps of purposeful misrepresentation to even get there.

            THIS is the conversation…

            Beck: “what about the 2nd amendment?”
            Carson: “We have a reason for the second amendment, people have a right to own weapons.”

            Beck: “what about semi-automatic weapons?”
            Carson:”It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it. If you live out in the country somewhere by yourself, I have no problem.”

            Everyone here seems to want to ignore the first part, which I bolded for emphasis, and completely take the second part out of context.

            Even in the worst case scenario, Carson is advocating for limiting high-powered weapons in high-population areas where someone “crazy” might get their hands on them.

            Obviously, I do not agree with that sentiment, but it isn’t a focal point for Carson, so I doubt that he fully considered his position on it before Beck asked him. Also, regional gun control would never fall within the purview of presidential or federal politics.

            The feds make policy for the entire country, not just parts of it. A bill that said that some people can enjoy their second amendment rights depending on where they live would never get through congress, would never be signed (even if liberals managed to gain a super-majority again), and would be struck down in courts as unconstitutional so fast that it would make your head spin, if it ever somehow got that far.

            If the liberals could have done that, don’t you think that they WOULD have, the day after Obama was first elected?

            This is much ado about nothing…

            Are we really going to feed on our own again, and let the liberals continue to destroy this country?

          • Marci

            I’d need to know more about Walker’s stance on CommonCore before I could seriously consider him as a candidate. It is rumored that he is for it.

          • rennyangel2

            WI went for Commie Core,but Walker has introduced a bill into his senate to abolish it–the senate may be disinclined to vote for the walk back–but he has changed his mind on it. You can google this info yourself. Don’t be a lo-fo voter or depend on me–you can check such an issue yourself.

          • jabbermule

            Tyranny? Really? The day the U.S. government exploded a nuclear bomb in the New Mexico desert is the day we lost the 2nd Amendment. How in the hell are we supposed to fight back against a tyrannical government who has nuclear bombs? Give me a break.

          • trixiewoobeans

            Not true. You can’t go around setting off nuclear bombs willy-nilly. Why is this government so desperate to take it’s citizens arms? Why are they buying up ammo? Believe me, it makes a difference.

          • jabbermule

            Well, unless we’re all allowed to have our own nuke in the backyard, there really isn’t anything we citizens can do about government overreach on our civil liberties. Now, if you want to talk about protection from robbery, assault, home invasion, etc, then the 2nd Amendment is still very applicable and relevant. But merely having assault rifles and automatic handguns to protect us from government tyranny when one branch of the U.S. government has the largest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world? That ship sailed a long time ago.

          • $22689786

            The right to defend one’s self is certainly wrapped up in the 2nd Amendment. However, I have to ask: why use the “propaganda language” of the gun ban lobby? Unless by “assault rifles” you are actually referring to shoulder-fired weapons utilizing a intermediate powered cartridge with a selective-fire capacity, and not something like a Colt AR-15- a “military looking” semi-auto?
            And did you really mean “full auto” pistols, or did you just forget to add the “semi” to automatic?
            I only ask because I believe it is important to be clear about what firearms really are when we discuss them. The greater majority of people know about firearms only what Hollywood and the Brady Campaign tell them. Correcting that is necessary if we want to keep the 2nd Amendment.
            As for “what we can do about govt overreach”- depends. In the event of an revolution, would the govt hold all the “really bad stuff”- or would they find that large numbers of the military joined up with the rebels, bringing their toys with them?
            A not unlikely outcome, based upon past experience.

          • jabbermule

            You’re right…I didn’t really mean to use the propaganda language of the left, I was just using it as shorthand for the point I was making.

          • trixiewoobeans

            I understand the point you’re trying to make, but respectfully disagree. Again, the government would not be so desperate to disarm it’s citizens if this wasn’t important.

          • Jeffrey Rutter

            You have to realize that in the entire history of the world, only two cities have been bombed with nuclear weapons. And then only because of the then reasonable calculation that doing so would prevent one million deaths during an invasion of Japan. Whatever else may be said over the cold war, “Mutually Assured Destruction” worked. No one is going to use nuclear weapons against their own population.

          • moi2u

            I wouldn’t say no-one, Jeffrey…Kim Jung-Un is demented enough to do that if he felt threatened.

          • Mark

            The 2nd Amendment is about small arms: rifles, pistols, shotguns. The word “arms” tells us that. Had it said “guns”, well the word guns in a military sense means cannons and artillery – a 21 gun salute isn’t what you’re seeing at a military funeral, that’s a rifle volley. A gun salute is done with howitzers.

            Secondly, good luck finding servicemembers willing to drop that nuclear weapon on their own homeland (and not for testing purposed). Won’t happen, simply put.

            Third, the military would also have to be convinced to forget their own oath to support and defend the Constitution in order to fight against the citizenry that wants nothing more than to follow the Constitution.

          • Maxwell Jump

            There were privately owned cannon and also warships back then, so their use of the term “arms” probably covered pretty much every type of weapon.

          • Chemman01

            Maybe, maybe not. Google or Bing Hoovervilles. The military has already fought not only against ordinary citizens but opened fire on unarmed veterans of WWI.

          • SDN

            Then why haven’t the Russians used nukes in Chechnya? Look up the term “collateral damage”. Then ask yourself: Does the government really think it can use even drone strikes in densely populated areas where it has to care if its’ own supporters and their families die? Overseas there are no voters…..

          • Patrick Chester

            Don’t bother. Gun banners always resort to the Nuclear Strawman when they have no argument.

          • Patrick Chester

            Well, unless we’re all allowed to have our own nuke in the backyard,
            there really isn’t anything we citizens can do about government
            overreach on our civil liberties

            *snipped after first strawman*

          • Sean Barrentine

            As others have stated, the chances of our government, or any government, deploying nukes against their own people on their own soil is slim to none. That’s suicide on their part. That said, the use of even heavy conventional weapons would do much the same by destroying the very same infrastructure the government needs to operate, leaving only ground combat. In the even of a grand-scale SHTF sort of scenario, the American people would become the largest insurgency in the history of mankind. One look at the war in Afghanistan tells us how good we are at defeating insurgencies, and we’re a damn sight better equipped, and more of us. In other words, the second amendment still has purpose as a deterrent against tyranny.

          • Ken Mitchell

            In the late 1700s, the most powerful weapon of war was the ship of the line; a sailing ship with cannon. The only thing more powerful than one ship of the line was TWO ships of the line, and at that point the skill of the captain was the deciding factor. Private citizens could, and DID, outfit private warships. The Second Amendment would allow a ship of the line, the most powerful weapon of the day.

            Today, the “most powerful” weapon is several orders of magnitude more powerful, and I think it’s time that we accept some limitation on the Second Amendment. I propose “crew served weapons” as that limit. If you can’t operate it yourself, it you NEED assistance, then you’re probably overreaching.

            So your 105MM howitzer is probably too much; but that Browning .50cal certainly qualifies. An AK-47? An M16 with selectable fire? Should be good to go.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            So, a 60mm mortar is ok? (innocent look)

          • Johnny Right

            Don’t be absurd. We draw the line at the Gustav. Technically, it’s a rifle.

          • mrz80

            Gustav? :)

          • moi2u

            Yep–would love one in my back yard 😉

          • Johnny Right
          • Chemman01

            If i easily carry a weapon it can I have it?

          • moi2u

            Your reasoning regarding giving up on protecting ourselves and our nation against Tyranny is dangerous–by your reasoning, the Revolutionary War would never have happened as England was totally militarily superior in every way to the revolutionaries seeking Independence here in the New World. And Israel, with its paltry might, should Never have won the Six Day war against the mighty combination and military might of all of its combined Arab neighbors. Besides, Even BO isn’t narcissistic and stupid enough to unleash nukes on US soil, or anywhere we may be down or upwind of them, regardless of how many assault rifles and auto-handguns are circling around out here.

          • CommonSense4America

            Shhhh,,,,don’t tell the Viet Cong or the Taliban. They might not keep fighting us.

          • Jeffrey Rutter

            Been living in a cave for past 30+ years? Nuclear armed tyrannies have been overthrown by populace before. E.g. The Soviet Union, East Germany, Ukraine, and others. Not even Obama is crazy enough to start nuking his own cities to suppress revolt. It would only turn his supporters against him.

          • Dee Dunbar

            he’d blame someone else! he needs a catastrophic catastrophy to enact marshall law and disarm Americans, if you think he gives a crap about America? read his book! he has made his position clear where he stands and its not American!

          • Jeffrey Rutter

            Okay, lets have a little reality in this discussion. What many do not know is that at every step in the chain of command two people must agree before the order to use a nuclear weapon can pass down the chain. In order for a nuclear weapon to be used, ANYWHERE, the President and one other must agree to give the order. Then two people must agree that it is a valid order before it passes down to the next level. By the time it gets to the people with physical control of the weapon, ten or more people would have to agree that it was a valid order. The U.S. Military is not made up of unthinking robots, their Code of Conduct specifically requires them to disobey unlawful orders. I served in a nuclear capable artillery unit, I know a little of what I speak.
            Finally, if any President were to order the nuclear bombing of say Dallas, it would probably result in him getting a .40 caliber invitation to talk to God.

          • Dee Dunbar

            And in the past I would of accepted your knowledge, but he has NOT obeyed one Law since being in office or the Constitution. I pray OUR military would not follow such an order but………….there are missing nukes and many puppets for the puppet master to pull the strings.

          • Mark Jackson

            Do you really think that our gov’t would nuke this country? What would be left for them to rule over if they did ?

            And if you believe that the citizenry wouldn’t stand a chance against our gov’t let me remind you of Viet Nam. We threw everything at a bunch of rice farmers and they held their own and drove us off. And then there’s the goat herders of Afghanstan who drove off the Russians and have held their own against us and we’ll be giving up that fight shortly without what I would call a substantial victory.

          • you can’t win

            Oh, so it was the local farmers that liberated the south by burning all their legal documents after we left? I see.

          • Jim Martin

            So right.

          • Jim Martin

            Obama didn’t speak about screwing the people like he has either. The man said that he is for controlling guns. That is a right and no one has the right to mess with it regardless. Him not talking about is more troublesome than if he did speak on it regularly.

        • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

          I’m sure we can come to an agreement on priorities.. We shouldn’t lock him out as a potential POTUS based on one big disagreement on the Second Amendment, if he would pledge to accept his view is the minority one, and would appoint a fierce 2nd Amendment Vice Presidential candidate..

          With the knowledge, the base would walk, if he broke that pledge.. His survival as a POTUS would depend on it, given the media and left’s reaction will be savage from the start, his candidacy would fracture their monolithic black support when they see the GOP isn’t the tiny tent party the left keeps saying we are.

          They can’t allow him to win, it puts the media and left’s lies about us front and center.

          As long as he doesn’t actively oppose the protection of gun rights, I don’t see why he’s off the board.

          You don’t kick your parents out of your life because you disagree about big things. We can disagree.. God knows we have some pretty basic disagreements between our different groups.. I have issues with Rand Paul’s strict libertarianism, but wouldn’t let that stop me from picking him over a democrat. A lot of us want to avoid going back to the 20’s disarming while the Russians and Chinese rush to catch up and surpass our technical edge. We don’t need to hit the height of the cold war levels.. but gutting the services now is insane..

          Given those fears about Rand Paul.. and still being willing to consider him, I find it self defeating to declare Dr. Carson a non person like this. It’ll reaffirm every liberals attacks on us in the media… one more club to beat down our message with..

          If we can retake the Senate, keep the House,.. there won’t be any rush to restrict the 2nd Amendment, we all know that.

          So Dana here, is just wrong.. love her, but this is like throwing your best chance out the window, because he disagrees on one major policy out of ten.. we can work it out.

          • ricecomm

            Well said…!

        • Jeffrey Rutter

          I agree, but we’re talking about first choices here. I would most certainly vote for Dr. Carson vs. any Democrat, I’m just not sure I want him to be the nominee… yet. Who knows, he may yet have a “come to Jesus” moment.

        • garygnfp

          Marta, how can any President do what he suggests? He is simply stating what already is policy – let local governments decide the specifics. Thats exactly what is going on today

      • derfelcadarn

        Are you willing to take that chance ? Remember the only thing standing between FREEDOM and tyranny is an armed Citizen !

        • ginny

          So….let me get this straight — you’re worried about Dr. Carson turning into a tyrant??! Are you kidding?! We already have a tyrant in the White House, and our 2nd Amendment rights aren’t protecting us against him and them one iota. Good God, at the rate we’re going, we won’t have any rights left for the next POTUS to take away….although I’m sure Hillary can find some, STARTING with the 2nd Amendment. She sure won’t do what Carson would do — overturn ACA, give us school choice and vouchers, finally start undermining the most pernicious and destructive force in the U.S., the teachers unions, open all federal lands to fracking and drilling for natural gas, produce a budget that slowly reduces our spending and that tackles fraud in our entitlement systems…and frankly, let him have one lunch with Wayne LaPierre, find out about the 400,000 citizens who don’t end up each year in our E.R.s and morgues because of the 2nd amendment… and his entire viewpoint, I believe, about it will change.

          • JenB

            Ben Carson is great, but we are in a point in time where we cannot afford to have someone who is iffy on the 2nd amendment. Obama is not the only one destroying this country, it is a majority of those in congress. you get these jerks to write a bill restricting guns and if Carson agrees with it, who do we have to STOP it? Hint….NOT Carson. I don’t think anyone should give up ANY right because the rest of the country is a mess. I don’t think Carson would be a tyrant….I worry about the one who comes in AFTER. Ben Carson won’t be President for life. It is too risky in my opinion.

          • CommonSense4America

            On the other hand,,,even though I, at this time, would not vote for him, he is not pushing for gun control. He is just stating his personal opinion. I don’t care who tries to change the 2nd amendment. Most true patriots that I know will not comply. IF that were to happen,,,well,,,it would not be a pretty sight.

      • blank

        > He has made it crystal clear that his priorities are

        And he’d give Dems gun control to get them.

        • ginny

          Where? In other places, he has said exactly the opposite. (I believe you can read all his positions on the website.) He doesn’t have to “give” Dems gun control to “get” them. Blacks will vote overwhelmingly for him, and they are NOT in favor of gun control as a group. He has many more votes to gain by being strong on the 2nd Amendment than he would ever win from liberals. They won’t vote for him no matter what he does (with the exception of running as a Democrat.)

          • blank

            > He has many more votes to gain by being strong on the 2nd Amendment than he would ever win from liberals

            I was speaking legislatively. If he could get his priorities by giving away gun rights, he’d do so.

            As to Carson’s positions, you posted a bogus domain and doesn’t seem to actually cite any positions by Ben.

            As to the rest of your post….

            > Blacks will vote overwhelmingly for him

            Maybe. (I note that black support for Clarence Thomas isn’t “overwhelming”.)

            > they are NOT in favor of gun control as a group

            They overwhelmingly vote for politicians that advocate gun bans.

          • ginny

            Dr. Carson is a giant in the black community (and received, btw, the top award that the NAACP can bestow on anyone. He was named a “Livng Legend” by the Library of Congress on its 200th anniversary and received the highest civilian honor anyone can earn, the Medal of Freedom, from President G.W. Bush. Blacks gave Herman Cain 40% of the vote AGAINST OBAMA, and he isn’t nearly the icon that Carson is. And blacks only voted for Democrats who are for gun control because they’re Democrats…not because they want gun control laws that overwhelmingly hurt them. They need (and maybe Carson needs) to be educated that gun control laws were first enacted by the Dems to keep guns out of the hands of blacks so they couldn’t defend themselves. That legally-owned guns are used over two million times a year for protection against violent crime, and 400,000 of those people felt they or their children would be dead if they didn’t have guns for defense. That’s 400,000 people who DIDN’T end up in ERs or morgues because they had guns. And if just 10% of those were children, that’s 40,000 kids saved every year — over 1000% more than were killed at Sandy Hook.

          • blank

            You’re arguing why Blacks should be pro-gun. However, you didn’t provide any evidence showing that they actually were. Their votes suggest that they aren’t.

            As to Carson’s popularity among Blacks, you’re citing events that predate his criticism of Obama. Heck, he wasn’t even known to be as “controversial” as Bill Cosby then.

            I’d be very happy if Carson was convinced wrt guns, but until he has, it’s a serious problem.

            I don’t expect perfection, but I’m unwilling to ignore problems and am very skeptical of anyone who argues that problems don’t exist or are unimportant.

          • SideTraKd

            Their votes are often against their own best interests and positions, though.

          • ginny

            I repeat — Cain got 40% of the black vote running against Obama…and he was plenty vocal against Obama. And (see Leonard Johnson’s post below) where Carson has said he is in favor of the 2nd Amendment. No one’s contending that “problems don’t exist or are unimportant” as you wrote. Far from it. But for those of us on the right to create so many problems for others on the right is insane. Blacks are overwhelmingly against gay marriage and abortion (despite having the most of them) and they still vote Democrat. And they’re also by far the biggest victims of gun violence (esp. where there are the strictest gun control laws, like Chicago, the murder capital of the western hemisphere.) Give blacks a chance to vote for one of their heroes that shares a lot of their values (including a strong Christian faith), and I believe they’ll vote for him in record numbers. He only has to get more than 20% (!) in the swing states to beat Hillary. Jeez, would you give him the chance to at least get in the primaries and the debates?!

          • blank

            > I repeat — Cain got 40% of the black vote running against Obama…and he was plenty vocal against Obama.

            Actually, he didn’t, and I shouldn’t have let that slide the first few times you wrote it.

            Cain didn’t run in a single election against Obama so he never got 40% of the vote against Obama or any other Democrat.

            Yes, there are some polls showing that kind of result, but no Dems were campaigning against Cain at that time.

            > Give blacks a chance to vote for one of their heroes that shares a lot of their values (including a strong Christian faith), and I believe they’ll vote for him in record numbers.

            Faith is good, but I notice that you haven’t provided any examples. Carson isn’t the first Black Republican. Why aren’t you posting about how this exact strategy has worked in other elections? (You don’t need to be nationally known to work this strategy in a congressional or even mayoral election.

          • ginny

            Why don’t you support a black man with the most spectacular African-American (emphasis on AMERICAN) success story I’ve ever heard who is beloved in the education reform field, not defensive about his Christian faith, is very strong on national defense and cutting spending (our bankrupting our country and destroying the futures of our young people would be a very strong argument in reaching out to that voting bloc) — in other words, why not support his getting in the race, and giving Americans a chance to get to know him and consider his potential? What on earth is the harm in getting him in the debates, and seeing how he does? The majority of blacks who have been sheep for the Dems do not even know a Dr. Ben Carson exists. Another example — Americans of all stripes were wildly in favor of Colin Powell running for POTUS; all polls had him wildly ahead of both Gore and Bush….and he would’ve run AS A REPUBLICAN. And he had no poliiical experience, but had leadership qualities (like Dr. Carson) and earned respect from both side of the political aisle. Why not give Carson that visibility and that chance???

          • blank

            > Why don’t you support a black man

            I wondered how long it would be before you played the race card.

            > What on earth is the harm in getting him in the debates, and seeing how he does?

            Who said anything about not letting him run?

            I realize that you like him. However, that doesn’t imply that someone who isn’t as enamored of him as you are is:

            (1) A racist

            (2) Wants to keep him out of the race.

            I’m not stopping him, or you, from doing anything. I’m merely saying that I have concerns.

            FWIW, you’re making me more concerned about Carson, not less. Insane people are often attracted to candidates who turn out to be disasters.

            > Another example — Americans of all stripes were wildly in favor of Colin Powell running for POTUS; all polls had him wildly ahead of both Gore and Bush….and he would’ve run AS A REPUBLICAN.

            Powell have been a horrible candidate and president, as his actions and statements after Obama was elected show.

            Thanks for providing an example.

          • ginny

            1) I wasn’t accusing you of being a racist, that is a ridiculous assumption and total misreading of what I wrote. And I didn’t accuse you of wanting to keep him out of the race, what I was suggesting is that we all support his getting into the race so his positions on everything would be clarified. I only said something about his being a “black man” because I thought it would be very beneficial for OTHER BLACKS in this country (and the loony left and the mushy middle) to see how much support he has from Republicans and the “racist” tea partiers. So my suggestion was that his candidacy is worth SUPPORTING. Regarding Colin Powell, that example was because so many were questioning whether blacks would vote for a Republican black — and he was a Republican at that time — and was overwhelmingly popular by both sides and blacks alike. And only by his getting in the race AND HAVING HIS VIEWS, PRIORITIES AND CONVICTIONS THOROUGHLY VETTED would we have been able to find out what kind of politician he is. But I don’t know how “horrible” a POTUS he would’ve been. We probably would’ve not gone into Iraq, and frankly I think he would’ve been stronger against Muslims than Bush was. And Obama NEVER would’ve beat Hillary (he only won because he would’ve been “our first black president”)….and I don’t truly know how much worse he would’ve been than Bush. And Hillary certainly wouldn’t have been as horrible as Obama! So it’s impossible to say how different the world would be today if Powell had beat Bush. Maybe worse, maybe better, but he would’ve stuck with his Republican principles, I think, if he didn’t have to switch sides to support Obama. I don’t know…and neither do you.

          • blank

            > I wasn’t accusing you of being a racist,

            You were insinuating that and expecting me to roll over.

            > what I was suggesting is that we all support

            Suggesting? You’re demanding that I support him and are attacking me for refusing to do so.

            > his getting into the race so his positions on everything would be clarified.

            That’s not how politics works, especially if he has principles. (Surely you’re not suggesting that his positions depend on getting into the race.)

            > he was a Republican at that time

            Not really, as he demonstrated. He was, and continues to be, an opportunist. Yes, he’s accomplished, but …

            > Maybe worse, maybe better, but he would’ve stuck with his Republican principles,

            He never had Republican principles. He adopted the label for a while.

            > I think, if he didn’t have to switch sides to support Obama

            And in doing so, proved that the folks who claimed that he was an opportunist were correct.

            I note that you still haven’t figured out that you’re damaging Carson’s brand.

          • ginny

            Gee, really? Is that why he won the straw poll in New Hampshire, won the next one overwhelmingly in the only vote that was taken recently in Iowa…and came in ahead of Walker, Ryan, Christie & Bush? Because we’re “damaging” his “brand?” He doesn’t have a “brand.” He has an impressive biography, a strong, principled character and his popularity if growing tremendously. I don’t think his supporters are “damaging” his “brand.” You are incredibly silly;

          • blank

            > Because we’re “damaging” his “brand?”

            I didn’t write that you’d destroyed his brand. I doubt that you could, by yourself, but if you’re typical, the lot of you will. (As to past examples, consider Ron Paul.)

            And winning a few straw polls two years out is meaningless.

            > He doesn’t have a “brand.”

            Of course he does. You keep talking about parts of it, and are contributing to other parts of it.

            > I don’t think his supporters are “damaging” his “brand.”

            Of course you don’t.

          • ginny

            I’m done.

          • SideTraKd

            I don’t buy that, even a little bit. You’re forgetting that Carson would almost certainly win against the empty sack of Hillary, and is also almost certain to have a Republican-dominated Congress, too.

            Because even if the Republicans don’t take the Senate back this year, it will be very close, and a Carson win in 2016 would easily be the tipping point.

            Plus, I really don’t see that kind of tit for tat dealmaking in his character.

          • blank

            > You’re forgetting that Carson would almost certainly win against the empty sack of Hillary

            Folks said the same about Romney vs Obama.

            Hillary has a huge and effective campaign organization already working for her. She just signed up the dominant spanish-language media outlet to campaign for her. She already has the english-language media in her pocket.

            In other words, if you think Carson will have an easy job, you’re insane.

            > Plus, I really don’t see that kind of tit for tat dealmaking in his character.

            Every piece of legislation involves compromise. Carson has already said that he doesn’t value gun rights, so it’s absurd to suggest that he won’t use them as a trading point.

            Dems have a history of using gun rights to kill legislation that they don’t like.

          • SideTraKd

            >Folks said the same about Romney vs Obama.

            Not many. In fact, I don’t remember anyone saying that. I know that a lot of people were trying to claim that Romney was the one with the best chance to beat Obama, but that isn’t the same thing, and I didn’t even agree with the sentiment.

            Even so, we had a pretty sorry lot of candidates to choose from, last time.

            Hillary does not inspire anywhere near the level of mindless idol worship that Obama has, and if someone lukewarm like Romney can come so close to beating Obama, with his waves of Obamazombies coming out to vote, then someone inspiring, like Carson, could easily beat a woman who nearly half of the country refuses to vote for, under any circumstance.

            You’re right that Hillary has the english-language media in her pocket. Every Democrat has that advantage. For example, the media LOVED Mondale and hated Reagan, and back then, we didn’t even have new media to counter the liberal media narrative.

            How’d that work out for Mondale?

            You are also forgetting that Carson’s comment on the matter was made in passing, and that it was very hypothetical, and… to boot… it concerned localized gun policy, over which no president has control.

            As president, it wouldn’t even be in his bailiwick.

          • ginny

            The draft Carson campaign has already raised more than Hillary’s PAC, and he’s just getting started. Romney was portrayed as a super rich white man who couldn’t relate to the poor, the middle class and minorities. Carson has no such vulnerabilities. Plus, Hillary has to win over 80% of the black vote in every swing state or she can’t win. Herman Cain running against Obama was getting 40% of the black vote, and Carson’s a thousand times more beloved and respected in that community than Cain was. I think he could get 75% of the black vote, roughly the same of the Christians and conservatives and the majority of the independents. Who else on our side can do that?

          • blank

            > The draft Carson campaign has already raised more than Hillary’s PAC, and he’s just getting started

            Hillary doesn’t have one PAC. She has dozens of organizations.

            I note that you are all ignoring the Univision deal. (Dems are pivoting to pick up an increasingly large Spanish-language vote.)

          • ginny

            You’re right — and whoever runs needs to be smart about reaching out to Hispanics without pandering to them or acting like Democrats. Whoever gets the top spot (like Walker, my 2nd favorite) would be wise to choose, imho, someone like Susana Martinez as VP. She’s an ex-Democrat, strong on 2nd Amendment, Spanish speaking WOMAN, not to mention a Governor of a state along our southern border. With enough money, it would be more effective to have Martinez making commercials herself in Spanish than surrogates doing the same for Hillary.

      • Sonya A. Willis

        He’s against deportation and in favor of a guest worker program in addition to his limitations on the 2A. No.

        • jabbermule

          That’s great – I’m glad you prefer Hillary.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Yes, of course…because save us Obi-ben Carsoni…you’re our only hope.

      • Dennis E. Amnott

        Ginny….all the things Dr. Carson has said he would like to fix, as POTUS, they are ongoing fixes to be worked everyday as well as any worldwide crisis that comes upon the scene. Letting the Gun Ban politicians see a percieved weakness or agreement on that issue would invite a total frontal attack where they would force the issue at any opportunity.
        I am in total agreement with all of Dr. Carson’s stated positions, EXCEPT, his statement on geographical gun ownership.

        We now have a POTUS who uses selective administration of Constitutional Rights and enforcement. NEVER AGAIN! I cannot accept this position ever again, and to me it is a ” deal breaker”.

        • ginny

          Dr. Carson has NEVER even hinted that he would overturn the 2nd Amendment…and he will never be elected unless we also have a Republican majority in Congress. And they will NEVER introduce anything that would endanger the 2nd Amendment, and any individual states or districts that want to do so have already done so. THIS IS SO NOT A PRIORITY OR EVEN A POSSIBILITY FOR HIM….so can we PLEASE evaluate him on the positions and priorities he has talked about over and over and over…! (btw, ideally, I’d like to see Scott Walker at the top of the ticket, and maybe Ted Cruz or Susana Martinez as his VP (and Carson as HHS Secretary), but I WANT CARSON IN THE RACE because I want the country to see what an enormously popular, accomplished black man with no skeletons in his closet can do. All I’m saying is, give the man a chance (and the encouragement) to get in the race. Then, if you don’t like his 2nd Amendment stance, vote for somebody else! But let’s stop engaging in this destructive circular firing squad!

        • SideTraKd

          How exactly do you imagine that congress would enact a geographically-based gun policy, even if the liberals controlled every seat in both the House and the Senate?

          I really do wish that people here would think things through before freaking out.


          Trashing an inspiring candidate over an off-the-cuff remark that involved a hypothetical situation that wouldn’t even be placed in the same realm of federal politics is so incredibly counter-productive!

          Don’t you think that we’ve had enough of shooting ourselves and our best people in the foot, lately?

          • Dennis E. Amnott

            I harbor no illusions on some fanciful type of geographical breakdown of gun ownership, what I do see in the comment, wether off the cuff, or on point is an opening to consider any kind of division on who should and should not be allowed gun ownership. Having spent the past 45 years fighting for law abiding citizens the Rights granted in the Bill of Rights, there is no compromising of our Rights that is even be considered.
            I actually like and admire Dr. Carson and have followed his public speeches for the past 2 years, long before the media caught up to him. What he did say on gun ownership is that he believes there has to be some sort of “gun free zones” whereas there are places that particular guns should not be allowed. He misses the point in that it is NOT the gun that is the demon, it is the person possessing and operating it. Until he moves closer to recognizing who the real culprit in in this debate, I don’t believe he fully understands all the issues and the implications of his words.
            I have no intension of placing myself near his level of knowledge on all the subjects he is so well versed, but I do know and live in the world of those who will try to deny our Rights through deception, lies, misuse of power, sympathy and the spreading of misinformation.
            I don’t mean to attack someone you very much admire, I do wish he had thought out his ideas before offering them as a useable plan of action.

          • SideTraKd

            He may have said something else at a different time, but the article quotes this…

            “It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it. If you live out in the country somewhere by yourself, I have no problem.”

            I’m with you in that I completely disagree with the sentiment, and think that it is an uninformed opinion. Might as well rename “gun free zone” to “Hey Criminals! Unarmed victims here ripe for the pickings!”

            Aside from felons and those with severe mental issues, I do not want to see any gun rights restrictions.

            However, I do not believe that Carson fits the bill of someone who would deny us our rights through “deception, lies, misuse of power, sympathy and the spreading of misinformation.”

            Clearly, he HAS missed the point on this issue. But consider that he was not the one who offered his opinion (he was asked), or pushed it, in any way. It is not a central issue for him, and he therefore probably didn’t put too much time into considering it.

            Also, what he favored in the comment would never be in the realm of things dealt with at the presidential level, so the entire point of this story is moot.

            Dana, as much as I love her to death, is simply wrong this time. It is an overreaction, and, similarly, many here are overreacting in the same fashion.

            We really need to stop doing that, or we will still be spinning our wheels while the Democrats finish reshaping the country into their little socialist “utopia”.

            We NEED people like Carson to represent the party, and, one off-the-cuff comment aside, Carson is a MAJOR upgrade to previous representatives of our cause.

            I do not see anyone else around the scene that could even come close to achieving Reaganesque levels of popularity… and I do believe that the possibility is there for him.

          • Leonard

            Here is the FULL conversation about the 2nd amendment that Carson had on the beck show;
            Beck: “what about the 2nd amendment?”
            Carson: “We have a reason for the second amendment, people have a right to own weapons.”
            Beck: “what about semi-automatic weapons?”
            Carson:”It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it. If you live out in the country somewhere by yourself, I have no problem.”

            That is it. Omitting the full conversation is lying by omission, just like a liberal. Dana has lost my trust and respect over this deception. Unfortunately it is so very easy to deceive Conservatives and trick us into political self destruction because of this knee-jerk toxic righteous reactive tendency!

          • SideTraKd

            I don’t know. I still respect Dana. I just disagree with her. I don’t think that she purposefully took Carson out of context. I just think that she didn’t fully consider what he said, and had a knee-jerk reaction.

            Much like others are having in this very thread.

          • ginny

            I agree with you — he needs to be educated. He needs to spend an hour with Wayne LaPierre, John Lott or Larry Elder, and I truly believe he will become a strong 2nd Amendment defender. Trust me, if he gets in the race, that meeting will happen!

          • Leonard

            Conservatives are very easily deceived because we tend to be too blinded by our own righteousness. It is how the liberals and libertarians got 10 million to stay home and not vote for Romney… They get to be righteous and our country gets screwed by Marxists. Taught us “moderates” a lesson, huh?

          • SideTraKd

            Well, this notion that we are “settling” unless we reject any candidate that isn’t perfect on every issue is one of our biggest problems today.

            That candidate doesn’t exist.

            Also, the presidential elections are about MUCH more than the presidency. In fact, I would argue that the presidential candidates themselves are FAR less important than the issue of who they are likely to appoint to the myriad of executive and judicial positions, nationwide.

            Any RINO, including McCain (who I can not stand!) would be a far superior choice than a liberal, for that reason alone.

            Even someone like McCain would not have been likely to fill the government with 100s of full blown liberals, as Obama has done.

            We need to stop allowing that to happen just because we want to reject the notion of choosing the lesser of two evils.

      • greenmanpostal

        Maybe limiting gun rights isn’t a priorty for the good doctor, but conservatives and especially gun owners have been stabbed in the back too many times to take any more chances.

        • ginny

          Please see my answer above.

        • Leonard

          Yep, so don’t take any chances–lose the elections and get someone 10 times worse… like we have now.

      • JenB

        I don’t think Carson will, I think others in congress will. Then when it passes both the house and senate, what do you think will happen? Will he veto it if he agrees with it? That is the problem and I really like Ben Carson. But we need one who will stick to the constitution and BoR. I agree with Dana on this.

        • CommonSense4America

          IF conservatives can control at least one house of congress then all we would have to worry about is Executive Orders, and I don’t think he would go there on the 2nd Amendment. Let’s be sure to keep AT LEAST one house in congress.

        • ginny

          Are you serious?! First of all, Dr. Carson said right after the quote Dana tweeted about that he supported the 2nd Amendment. Secondly, do you seriously believe that Dr. Carson would be elected POTUS with both branches of Congress going Democrat? Thirdly, not even when Obama had control of both houses, or any other time, like when Clinton had a Democrat Congress did even they move to strike down the 2nd Amendment. There is no way in hell that the American people are going to go along with that, and no Republican candidate can win dogcatcher if he doesn’t support it. So Dana (and you) have created a straw man, and for some reason CHOOSE TO IGNORE EVERY SINGLE OTHER POSITION CARSON HAS TAKEN, PERSONALLY, POLITICALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY to create doubts and questions that are damaging to the potential of this great leader. Why???

          • blank

            > Dr. Carson said right after the quote Dana tweeted about that he supported the 2nd Amendment.

            Obama has said exactly the same.

            “Support the 2nd amendment” is meaningless. Exact policy matters.

            In other words, it isn’t the “I support the 2nd amendment” statement that matters. The “but no one needs …” is what counts.

            Gun controllers don’t have to repeal the 2nd amendment to get their way, so the fact that there haven’t been any serious proposals to do so is meaningless.

            As I wrote, I don’t expect perfection but I do expect honesty and reality and I’m not seeing it from the Carson folk.

          • ginny

            Look, people believe what they want to believe. So if you want to believe Carson is a big foe of the 2nd Amendment, you will choose to interpret his comments that way. It doesn’t make you “right”, but you’ll earn no respect from those of us who also value his strong stances on issues like education (the most important civil right of the 21st Century), the economy, energy independence and healthcare. If you choose not to care about any of those issues….just who is the loony extremist here? You’re like the idiot “Julia” college girls who only care about the government paying for their contraception! (I would agree with you if there was one iota of evidence that indicated Carson would try to overturn the 2nd Amendment, which he couldn’t do anyway, but there isn’t.)

          • blank

            You keep making up stuff and demonstrating insanity, even after it’s pointed out. (“not trying to overturn the second amendment” is a very low bar that even Obama meets.)

            > you’ll earn no respect from those of us

            Why am I supposed to care about that?

          • ginny

            Exactly what am I making up, and how am I demonstrating insanity? I’m merely pointing out that your obsession with gun control purity is the definition of extremism, ignoring all other challenges this country faces. Who are you trying to convince, and to what end? Why would you be posting here about Carson if you weren’t trying to make an intelligent case or influence others?

          • blank

            Among other things, you’re trying to attribute an obsession to me that I’ve explicitly denied. You’ve repeatedly misrepresented what I’ve written about Carson.

            I could go on and on – the list of things that you’ve gotten right is shorter.

            You tried to shut me up with insults and now you’re going into conspiracy mode.

          • ginny

            I’m done, this is a ridiculous dialogue. Let’s just wait and see what happens. Amazingly, we’re both on the same side, and wasting each other’s time.

      • nordicman

        What makes you think that Ben Carson won’t turn on the conservative white base and be just like most blacks in positions of power have shown they’re like? Most blacks hate whites, whether they’re professional race hustlers or ‘black conservatives.’ The leftist blacks make money accusing you of racism, the black conservatives make money saying things white conservatives are too afraid to.

        • mike_in_kosovo

          What makes you think that Ben Carson won’t turn on the conservative white base and be just like most blacks in positions of power have shown they’re like?

          Like Condi Rice? Allan West? etc etc?

      • James Tanner

        I would vote for Carson over any leftists and some on the right, but there are more candidates I think would fall closer to my belief system. It’s a close call so everything counts.

      • Leonard

        Thank you Ginny. We are being taken over by Marxists because of this conservative toxic righteousness where 90 percent agreement Is ignored and 10 percent disagreement leads to righteous condemnation. If we don’t Do all the things you pointed out as Dr. Carson’s focus, then we will be defunct as a country–but we have guns… Conservatives allow people that are overtly anti-gun to get elected because some conservative won’t support a candidate that supports the 2nd, but is not for unrestricted access to guns for all. Real smart, huh?

        I own guns and never leave home without my LCP in my pocket… But I will ask you gun zealots this; DO YOU BELEIVE A 10 YEAR OLD HAS FULL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? I do, but we don’t allow them to buy or carry a gun–how unconstitutional to restrict their rights, huh? Get a grip conservatives, as Dr. Carson said in the Beck interview–“There s a reason for the 2nd amendment, people have a right to own guns.” I say stop treating guns as a religion!

        • ginny

          Wow — thank you! I knew I had read or seen Carson’s defense of the 2nd Amendment but I didn’t know where I’d seen it. I really appreciate your pointing this out…and all your other articulate arguments. Where do you live, btw?

          • Leonard

            Dr. Carson’s statement is what he said RIGHT BEFORE the quote that Dana Loesch used to paint him as anti-2nd amendment… She has lost my respect due to omitting that because it is a liberal tactic. I live in Minnesota,, and you?

          • ginny

            SoCal — and you guys have been hogging all the winter weather this year! It’s in the 80’s here — ugh! (I’m from the Midwest, Kansas City, so I really miss “weather.” We don’t have weather — our seasons are fire, drought, earthquakes and mudslides. (Don’t ask me how we get mudslides w/o rain — it ain’t easy!)

          • Leonard

            Winter, yea… I have been here for 24 years (original from RI)and this is the coldest winter so far… Because of “global warming.” I didn’t know that had reasonable people left in So Cal, how do you stay alive in the land of liberals? :)

          • Leonard

            I do most of the political debates on Facebook, that is how I got here. Check out my page, most of it is private though–Send me a friend request if you would like to.

          • ginny

            Did send you a “friend” request, although my Facebook page really isn’t set up. There are pictures and things on it that I didn’t even know were there! (One is of my husband and me at an event that Larry Elder spoke at — are you familiar with Elder? I noticed on your Facebook page that you had posted something about Condie Rice, and Larry was just talking about her on his radio show.

            He read a piece written by John Ridley (recent Oscar winner for Best Adapted Screenplay for 12 Years a Slave) discussing about how despicable it is that liberals can’t recognize how extraordinary Condoleeza Rice is, and had to lambaste her because she’s a Republican. It was a great piece, and Larry said it was up on his website but I couldn’t find it. Anyway, so glad to make your acquaintance! You’re right — it isn’t easy being a conservative out here….but you must have it even worse! Glad we’re on the same side, and hopefully things will start to turn around this November…if (and it’s a big “if”) we can stop being the stupid party who continually hosts circular firing squads!

          • Leonard

            Of course I am familiar with Elder and the who’s who of the conservative movement. Yea, the Twin cities is very liberal–I just moved because I could no longer tolerate the idea of Keith Ellison being my representative in congress. I despise him more than Obama! The toxic righteousness is why we still have the Marxist in the WH… Conservatives in general have no concept of political strategy or tactics and wear it as a badge of honor… Regardless of the outcome!

      • Billy Gramlin

        I do agree with Dana that the Second Amendment is NOT negotiable, but I also agree with Ginny here in that just because he believes certain guns in certain types of neighborhoods are subject to a greater risk of theft by someone who might use them in a crime is not necessarily him saying he would be a proponent for messing with the second amendment. He seems to me to be a man full of logic and wisdom and people who speak from a position of wisdom often say things that are not fully clarified at the time. In other words, was this him giving advice to people who live in the inner-city areas about what might happen if they owned assault rifles? Or was he point blank saying he didn’t think people in those settings should be allowed to have them. That is a different story, and point of view. I think he knows what the constitution says and I just don’t see him trying to promote changing or otherwise denying anybody’s civil rights when it comes to gun ownership. Being a medical doctor though, I can see where he would prefer that people use good, common sense when they choose to own ANY weapon or weapons. I don’t care if it’s a gun, knife or a hatchet! As long as all of us Americans who support the second amendment stand in solidarity on the subject, neither it nor any other part of the constitution will be changed by one man in the White House!

        • ginny

          I just wish every conservative would get behind Dr. Carson (go and sign the petition on the website) to show substantial “clamoring” to get him into the race. Can you imagine the caliber of debate we’d have with him, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and Scott Walker? It would be amazing, and the country would get to see a wildly successful black man being supported by a huge swath of conservatives & Tea Partiers (even if he didn’t get the top spot) who doesn’t consider himself a victim and won’t play the race card and won’t bow down to political correctness — in other words, exactly the opposite of the *$%!* we have in the Oval Office today….not to mention his incompetent successor, Hillary, who has the character of a jackal. Actually, that’s demeaning to jackals.

      • JAR07

        Okay, gun control is not a priority. But imagine for a moment that he was President. There are productive times for every President, along with slow times. In the slow times, Congress (particularly the party opposing the President) intoduces legislation to advance their agenda. One of the Democrats’ priorities IS gun control. So in an effort to show he can compromise, he signs limited and conditional gun control legislation. While not a priority, it still becomes law. From my perspective, Dana Loesch is right … willingness to justify altering a civil right moves him down the list for me. The 2nd Amendment is very important to me. The same may not be true for everyone, so it is for each to decide. But one must understand why this is a red flag for most liberty-minded conservatives.

        • ginny

          “Slow times”??! First of all, Carson is not going to be president without Republicans controlling at least one branch of Congress. And in case you haven’t noticed (did you hear his Prayer Breakfast Speech or the one at CPAC?), he’s not exactly the type to “go along to get along.” And the next POTUS, whoever he/she is, is going to have plenty on their plate without needing to respond to stupid legislation from the opposing side. For instance, the House introduced 47 job & appropriation bills last year, and Harry Reid didn’t bring any of them up for debate or a vote in the Senate. You’re really worried about nothing here, and there are such big issues for us to be grappling with!

          • JAR07

            You assume a lot of things about the future. I’m not sure what those assumptions are based on except that you appear to be a genuine fan and supporter of Dr. Carson. Where you and I differ, though, is I have no problem with you making the decision to support him because you seem to be informed on most of the issues. I disagree with your conclusions about what could happen if he ran and was elected President, and then hit roadblocks trying to accomplish goals years down the road. Because of my conclusions and reservations, I move him down my list. That’s all.

            I never said I wouldn’t vote for him in a general election or even in a certain pool of primary candidates, though. There are, however, probably 3 to 6 of the “potential” candidates I would support ahead of him because I have less reservations on their past stances or comments.

            To say that I’m “really worried about nothing here” is presumptuous at the very least and perhaps condescending at the worst. Who do you think you are to assume to know better than me about the level of concern I should have over particular issues? We vote for a reason, so we can all express our point of view by supporting candidates who, we feel, represent us. Dr. Carson would represent me in a lot of ways, but some of the ways that he does not represent me are big deals. At this point, I feel Ted Cruz probably represents my belief system best, followed by Rand Paul and Scott Walker. I have issues with each, but most of those issues have to do with their level of zeal on certain topics; none of them involve questionable stances on the Bill of Rights.

          • ginny

            Fair enough. Time will tell. Go Scott Walker!

      • kssturgis62

        Every Person who said they would not come for our guns has lied or “Changed their minds”. Hmm Pat Toomey, and oh my gosh do you love Chris Christie to ??

        • ginny

          Good God, this has been blown so out of proportion. Why don’t we just wait and see what happens? What’s wrong with supporting Dr. Carson getting in the race — he’s got a lot to offer the Republican Party and his popularity, even if he doesn’t get the top spot, can do a lot to reveal the true feelings of conservatives on race. I believe he needs to spend an hour with John Lott or Wayne LaPierre or Larry Elder, and he would come away with a very different view on the whole subject of the 2nd Amendment and the left’s proposed restrictions. The man isn’t even a candidate, and he’s being “rejected” because thousands (millions?) suppose they “know” how he feels and thinks, what he would do in the Oval Office. Get a grip, and please stop this infernal circular firing squad that destroys our candidates before they even get on the national stage.

          • kssturgis62

            I don’t care if he gets in the race. I think it would spice things up. I also think it would be great if Thomas Sowell got in the race.

            You just can’t take people at their word anymore. they say they are going to take them, they have proven they will take them. I mean first we are going to get rid of Obamacare, now they are fixing it. so I don’t trust no one or anything. Ted Cruz is going to be for Amnesty just like the rest of them. It is a Vicious circle and it isn’t going to end

            I don’t have to worry about destroying the candidates. they do that to themselves. They are NOT MINE. I see a whole bunch of comments here who told you the same thing I did.

            So what I think you need to do, is GROW UP. I would start BELIEVING WHAT THEY SAY, because even when they have a REVELATION, and say they changed their mind, THEY LIE AND DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE GOING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE. I think Most have proven that over the past 5 years. I think most proved that to me over the past 35 years. Most like you seem to not have been paying attention to what they have been saying and doing. Did you also believe that Romney was against Obamacare? On the Social Issue side did you believe he was against Abortion and Gay Marriage???? If you did believe him, then you didn’t know what he did in Massachusetts, and you chose to ignore his statements throughout his life. I mean MY GOSH that man was so conservative.

            Most like me will NOT waste our votes again on someone who will try to take a God Given Right away from us. Most like me will NOT vote for a Progressive from the Group of Progressives like the GOP. I wasted my vote on Dole, McCain and Romney. I will NOT do that again. I am 52 years old, I am sick of voting for Liberals.

            Dr. Ben Carson is a good guy. He is a gifted surgeon who has done a lot for a lot of people. But Ben Carson has an issue with guns. Guns are our God Given Right, guaranteed to us in the Constitution of the USA> I am sick of giving people a PASS on my RIGHTS. When it says in the 1st Amendment CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, what does that mean??? they will NOT DO IT.

            The 2nd Amendment says the PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Where does it say they can’t? The Heller Case was a Reaffirmation of my Constitutional Rights, and when someone says they want to limit that or take that my hair stands up.

            By your analogy, I should say nothing about Christie, Ryan, Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Paul, and the list goes on and on. This isn’t about the 11th Commandment of Reagan’s anymore. this is about the SALVATION OF OUR NATION. I will speak out, and I will make sure these Progressives will not only not get my vote, but they will not get many others.


          • ginny

            I am hardly naive. I am older than you and have lived through enough campaigns to know that not only politicins change, their parties change too. Kennedy would be a conservative today with his beliefs in low taxes, strong military, faith and family, no federal funding for abortion. Reagan used to be a Democrat, as did I. Our current political system tends to corrupt everyone who steps foot in D.C., but that doesn’t mean we just give up and not vote for anybody. Also, if Dr. Carson does get in the race, he will not be beholden to special interests; this is a grassroots campaign, and he will be supported by the tea partiers, but even they (particularly the seniors among them) are not in favor of entitlement reform. Everybody says they want spending cuts, but not THEIR GOV’T PAYCHECK. In his prayer breakfast speech, Carson recommended everyone — that means everyone that has any income at all — has to pay 10% tax, so that everyone has some skin in the game. And he believes our current deficit is immoral — it’s bankrupting our country and destroying its future for our children. And I don’t know if I’ve written this to you or not (or so, forgive me, but you didn’t respond to it), but I believe that if Carson spent 1 hour with Wayne LaPierre or John Lott or Larry Elder, he would get a great education in the necessity not only of the 2nd Amendment but of every single person in this country having the right to arm and protect themselves.

            Re: the 2014 elections — I’m going this weekend to my state convention. I was very involved in an Assembly race a few months ago in which if the moderate Republican won, she would’ve denied the CA legislature the 2/3rds majority it needs to overturn Prop 13 (the 30 year old initiative that limits our property taxes to 1%; in every other respect, we have among the highest taxes in the country. Dems outnumber ‘Pubs 2 to 1 in our district, she was outspent 10-1…and out of 28,000 votes cast, she lost by 178 votes. FIFTY THOUSAND REPUBLICANS IN THIS DISTRICT DIDN’T VOTE! So we’re now an officially super blue state with all the horrors that will bring that we don’t already suffer. So 1) I totally agree with you about getting involved in the elections this November, and 2) I hope to God that if your ideologically “pure” candidate doesn’t win in 2016, you can bring yourself to vote for the Anti-Hillary, whoever he/she may be. If you don’t and she wins, you have no right to complain about anything. I’m with that dope, William Buckley – I’M FOR THE MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE WHO CAN WIN. Calling our candidate “Progressive” is just going to guarantee that we have the most progressive sob in the White House. You okay with that?

          • kssturgis62

            No candidate is perfect. I will be the first to admit that. I can accept one or two things. But when people want to nominate a Christie, Ryan, Romney, Dole, McCain, forget it. Tell me the difference between them and Hillary or Obama. That is again Telling me if you don’t vote for them the LIBERAL WINS. I am working my fanny off in my state. I worked the phones for 27 campaigns in 2010. Like you I have given my time, Money, patience, Legs walking door to door, and showing up at speech after speech, and paying to go to dinner after dinner. I will not quit. But I will not be told that If Jeb Bush or Chris Christie is the Nominee in 2016, they will be better than hillary. Really???? Where is a progressive on the right better than a progressive on the left. That is like saying Mussolini was better than Hitler, and Stalin didn’t kill as many as Mao. or vice Versa.

          • ginny

            I hear ya. I really held my nose and voted for McCain (although I was absolutely thrilled when he chose Palin as a running mate…too bad she couldn’t answer simple questions like, “What do you read?) and I enthusiastically voted for Romney/Ryan because I truly believed that this country needed someone with strong moral character and amazing intelligence (esp. having Paul Ryan by his side) to turn this country around. And c’mon — he would NOT have initiated his version of ACA because the country didn’t want it. You cannot tell me for a second that you really believe Romney wouldn’t have been a thousand times better than Obama. Hell, Hillary would’e been at least twice as good…make that half as bad, and I truly can’t stand the woman. (btw, I just read my post above — AARRGHH! “Fifth” thousand Republicans who didn’t bother to vote in our district should have been “fifty” thousand….and we are NOW (not “not”) officially a super blue state. Sorry)

            I have a 25 pound cat named “Moose,” And Moose would be a better POTUS than Hillary, so yes, even Chris Christie would be better. Just taking on the teachers unions (by far the most evil, pernicious and damaging organization in the country, who contributes more to political campaigns — one of them, the NEA — than AT&T, Exxon Mobil, JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, Walmart, Pfizer, Fed Ex, Goldman Sachs, Boeing and Disney COMBINED) is worth putting that giant puffer fish in the White House. Hillary will continue every single liberal program and budget buster that Obama has put in place and, if we’re lucky enough to control both the House and Senate, will just veto everything we try to do. I do not believe that any Republican (even a RINO) will do that. But let’s kill ourselves to get Walker or Ryan or Carson or Cruz or ANYBODY WHO CAN BEAT HILLARY in the Oval Office. If we don’t, we’re toast.

      • Joe FireTruck


        • ginny

          We’ll see. We’re all on the same side here…or at least most of us.

          • Joe FireTruck

            I AM NOT on the same side as an osamabama. What kind of name is that for an American president? He is bullshit from some foreign place or other.

          • ginny

            I was talking about you and me…not you and Obama. Whether or not Dr. Carson is strong enough (or reliable enough) to defend the 2nd Amendment is what we’re debating here. I’m a card-carrying NRA member (female) who believes everyone should be issued a conceal and carry permit with their birth certificates!

          • Joe FireTruck

            Well then…..will you marry me? I warn you; I am old and ugly. You can see me on , just search : The Fabulous Musical Fire Truck. Enjoy.

    • shortcuttt

      You can’t get on an airplane with your gun. There are Geographic limits to every “right”! Dana is rooting for someone else, that’s fine! But she should say that instead of bad mouthing least be intellectually honest about it!

      • nickdqwk

        She did not bad mouth Dr. Carson, she simply highlighted his position on gun control. I do indeed agree with Dr. Carson on his conservatism, but I also agree with Dana that he seems to be okay with dispensing with a defined right of the constitution. The founding fathers foresaw, the likes of our current administration and is the primary reason for the 2nd amendment, and it shall not be infringed.

        • shortcuttt

          I heard that” speech” and Dr. Carsons comment was in passing.So how Dana can assume the Dr.s position on the Second Amendment in such a brief reference without directly asking him, and giving him the opportunity to clarify, at the very least is unfair.So any rational person would assume that Dana is rooting for Someone else, which is fine! But at least be honest about it! She is well aware that there are limits to everything! You can’t scream fire in a theater, you can’t take your gun on a plane,etc. Dana doesn’t walk on water!

          • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

            “Dana doesn’t walk on water!”

            No one does, we have to each think this through and reach our own conclusions, I believe Dana’s being unfair, based on a few off the cuff remarks, we really can’t use that to judge the whole of what his priorities would be..

            and if we retake the Senate, does any of us believe that suddenly the GOP which has been fairly loyal on this issue will put up gun control as a priority?

            That’s nonsensical.. we know they wouldn’t.. Dr. Carson isn’t Obama, and I do not believe we can assume he’d write his own laws given his positions we already know.

            at least let’s all give Dr. Carson a chance to address the issue before slamming the door on him.

            Each of us.. decide based on his own words. We owe him the chance to at least address what Dana has said.

            Conviction by assumption is a progressive trait, let’s hear the man out at least.

          • shortcuttt

            I agree.very well said. The liberals love it when we talk each other down.I don’t know who the best Candidate is yet but I won’t say who the ” worst” is either.It’s time to start acting like an American and do what’s best for my Country rather than my ego.but your post was very well said. Thanks

          • Liz

            And right there is the issue. Doing what is right for “our” country. We all have differing ideas about what is best. Dana stated her opinion. And that is all it was. Her opinion.

          • shortcuttt

            Even if “her opinion” sways voters? I don’t think I have the “right” to say how some one else feels about anything! especially in the contex on guns.when your a public figure you are held to a different standard, right, wrong or indifferent, that’s just the way it take a be nine statement from an interview and claim that to be Dr.Carsons’ 2d Amendment view is irresponsible, in my opinion.

          • Wrinkly cankles

            Are you functionally illiterate or just a low information voter? Be nine? The word is “benign” and the contraction of “you are” is you’re not your.

          • shortcuttt

            Spell check is the last refuge of the shallow. Classic troll tactic, you can’t intelligently defend your position so “attack your opponents”? Idiot! did I spell that right??

          • Wrinkly cankles

            I’m totally conservative and happen to be gay so I’m not attacking your opinions. By the way, spell check couldn’t fix “be nine”, and “Candidate”, unless it’s someone’s name, doesn’t require the random capitalization mid-sentence.

          • CommonSense4America

            Well now,,,aren’t we special!!! What does being gay have to do with anything except where you choose to put your dink. We don’t care!!!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            I don’t think I have the “right” to say how some one else feels about anything!

            She referenced Carson’s own words as to how *HE* felt.

          • shortcuttt

            Yea,I’ve heard that “claim”, yet no one has offered evidence of that. besides, that wasn’t the thrust of my initial post, though it was masterfully deflectly, my point was if Dana doesn’t support him, fine! But don’t accuse him of being anti – 2cd Amendment in the process based on a benign comment made in an interview. I think my position is reasonable and some people can’t seem to separate principal’s from personalities.The Election is 21/2 yrs away and Dana is already ruled Dr.Carson out! Excuse me if I’m a little dubious.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Yea,I’ve heard that “claim”, yet no one has offered evidence of that.

            So, you never bothered to actually watch the video? That’s on *YOU*, not us.

            But don’t accuse him of being anti – 2cd Amendment in the process based on a benign comment made in an interview.

            Why not?

            I think my position is reasonable and some people can’t seem to separate principal’s from personalities.

            Sort of like how you have with Dana’s comments, you mean?

            The Election is 21/2 yrs away and Dana is already ruled Dr.Carson out!


          • shortcuttt

            I’m not really sure where I have taken Dana’s comments ” out of context”? Please enlighten me.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            For starters, your claim that *she* is stating how Dr. Carson feels, when her own comment links to a video where Carson himself makes the statement of ‘how he feels’ about it.

          • shortcuttt

            That “statement” was in two parts.he believes in the right to bare arms but “believe’s in some Geographical limits” Dana ignored the first part and chose to fixate on the 2d part! Using that( (which exist TODAY) to exclude him from the running.And my point is this,Dana is supporting someone else but instead of admitting that, she came up with this BS reason. If you can’t understand that, that would be your problem!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Dana ignored the first part and chose to fixate on the 2d part!

            That’s because the second part negates the first.

            And my point is this, Dana is supporting someone else

            So. fecking. WHAT???

            but instead of admitting this, she came up with this BS reason

            No, the BS is all on your summation of the issue, I assure you.

            If you can’t understand this, that would be your problem!

            This is true… I don’t ‘do idiot’ well, my apologies.

          • shortcuttt

            Well “Mike of kosovo” you gave yourself away in your earlier post. Your no different than a liberal Dana, that’s not true, they admitt who they are! You gave it away when you said earlier,” that’s on you not “US”. Who is “US” “Dave of Kosovo”? I don’t expect anything less coming from the Beck crowd!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Who is “US”

            Who is ‘us’?

            That would be ‘people with an IQ in at least double digits’, as opposed to yourself, you microcephalic twit.

          • shortcuttt

            I have an IQ high enough to figure you out Dana! Your as fake as the rest of the RINOs on Fox!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            I have an IQ high enough to figure you out Dana!

            But evidently not high enough to figure out the difference between male and female….

          • shortcuttt

            Hard to tell the difference anymore……. but not impossible.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Yeah, you found me out… I’m really Dana and I made this account a couple years ago, just to mess with you today. *rolleyes*

            So, tell us…do the windows on your bus *really* taste like idiot spit?

          • shortcuttt

            After 22 yrs of marriage And 16 yrs in a chemical dependency occupation, I know when I’m debating a female! whether or not your Dana, I could be mistaken, but I doubt it!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            And 16 yrs in a chemical dependency occupation

            After 16 years, I’d think you would’ve figured out that step 1 is “stop using”.

            I know when I’m debating a female

            Evidently not.

            Pro-tip: Don’t give up the day job to go full time at your Amazing Kreskin gig, you suck at it.

          • shortcuttt

            Don’t worry, your secret is safe with me! wink,wink. Btw. “1rst step” is getting honest!

          • shortcuttt

            Still waiting for you to correct me on your name ” Mike of kosovo”. Btw, don’t be to hard on yourself, you do “idiot” just fine!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Still waiting for you to correct me on your name

            Why? So you can make the same ‘spelling nazi’ whinge that you did upthread? Besides, given the lack of intelligence displayed in the rest of your postings, I have no reason to hold you to normal standards.

          • shortcuttt

            Controlling speech by subterfuge really wouldn’t qualify you to discern the value of “normal”, however,” Nazi” is right up your alley! I’m sure the thought police are celebrating you as we speak!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Controlling speech by subterfuge really wouldn’t qualify you to discern the value of ‘normal’

            Where have I prevented you from speaking? And ‘subterfuge’, hell…I’ve baldly stated that you’re too stupid to be allowed in public without an adult present…that window-licking penchant of yours evidently has gotten a bit *too* embarrassing.

          • shortcuttt

            To your first poit.: I support Our Military but not on every street corner! 2d: you are free to “support” anyone you like but you don’t have the right to twist the words of a good man to achieve your ends. We have enough of those kind of people there now!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Nobody twisted Carson’s words, regardless of how much you may *think* they have.

          • Sonya A. Willis
          • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

            Not enough,.. a couple of sentences that vaguely speak about semi-automatics in cities..

            does he really know what a semi-automatic is?.. he’s a doctor,.. I expect he’d be out of touch on that issue. I want to hear him speak a lot more expansively on it, with a questioner who fills in the gaps..

            for example,..

            Dr. Carson,.. a semi-automatic handgun, which fires one bullet per trigger pull, the same as a revolver, do you favor cities being able to ban them?

            Dr. Carson,.. Are you in favor of banning sporting rifles?. like the AR-15 family?.. and not semi-automatic hunting rifles which are mechanically the same?

            You have to make sure we’re not talking past each other, because he’s using media terms, not the correct ones.. at least we need to see which page he’s on, even if it’s the wrong one, not everyone has the back ground to talk about guns without tripping over media inspired catch all terms, that are completely incorrect.

            Two lines are not enough to judge his or our future on.

          • Liz

            Dana is not being unfair. She stated her views and that is all they were. And she has the right to slam the door if that is her main issue.

            I hadn’t heard Dr. Carson’s views on gun control, but because he is a doctor I would assume that he would want more control. It is commonsense that makes me believe that.

            But you are right about giving the man the chance to explain his comments. I think he is truly an outstanding American and I look forward to seeing how thing shake out in the upcoming election season. It should be very interesting with all the new blood.

          • Sailing J

            Dana isn’t being unfair. It’s her opinion based on what she’s heard, read and seen. I and a lot of other people agree with her. Dr. Carson has already addressed the issue.
            Everybody has something that is a deal breaker about a candidate. Restrictions on the 2nd Amendment is a deal breaker for a lot of Americans. What’s yours?

          • Wrinkly cankles

            “Off the cuff” comments most times reveals a person’s true character or thoughts

          • CommonSense4America

            I would think that by now, Dr. Carson would know what people are saying about his stance on the 2nd amendment. They were his words, no matter the circumstance that they were uttered. He could correct or clarify the statement if he wanted. Maybe in time, he will.

          • A_Conservative

            And neither does Dr. Carson.

          • Liz

            Nothing that a person getting into the political arena says is ever in passing. You need to be honest about that.

          • shortcuttt

            That would also apply to Dana.thanks for making my point! Dana has a Candidate she is backing and obviously it’s not Dr. Carson. My point is simple,just say who you like, instead of the subterfuge,

          • nickdqwk

            Not in passing at all, since Dr. Carson spoke out at the prayer breakfast over a year ago he has been given a national stage to which he often when asked, gives his honest feelings toward gun control. It just happens that I agree with Dana on this, and it is not okay limit liberties to one group that is enjoyed by others, that is not the AMERICAN way. No Dana does not walk on water nor does Dr. Carson or even shortcutt!

          • Andy Z

            If we were allowed to bring guns on airplanes as the constitution would suggest 9-11 might not have happened at all the erosion of our right to self defense has caused all the mass shootings too. There were never meant to be any restrictions on the second amendment in fact in our early history civillians had fully armed warships (the stealth bombers of their day) also unlike the other amendments the first 10 were put in so certain states would ratify the Constitution not having them was a deal breaker

          • shortcuttt

            “If” my Aunt had balls, She’d be my Uncle! For a man like Dr.Carson who has been on the” front line” of gun violence in the inner Cities, I would say he’s pretty measured on the issue.

          • nickdqwk

            Like addressing the lack of fathers in the home? The school system where Teachers are not allowed any disciplinary tools and the students can be as abusive foul mouthed as they wish. or, Take the Semiautomatic firearms away from “Law abiding citizens”?

            Like just maybe addressing the why, instead of the result!

          • nickdqwk

            Edit: The man is a Doctor, but his remedy for gun violence is on par with, “Lets amputate the arm we’ll find out was caused the infection later.”

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Twaddle. That’s like saying people who like lettuce know all the difficulties farmers have with crops.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Dana doesn’t walk on water!

            News flash: Neither does Ben.

          • shortcuttt

            I think most people would be supprised to learn that Dana “was” a committed Democrat long before she became a “Conservative”.So, I guess some habits die hard.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            I’m sure you think that has being on the discussion..but it really doesn’t.

        • ginny

          Casually mentioning limitations on gun ownership (like background checks, mental illness restrictions, etc) is not the same as “dispensing with a defined right of the Constitution.” See my comment to derfelcadarn above.

          • nickdqwk

            It is not casual, it is repeated every time it is asked.
            Just limiting the semiautomatics from “Law abiding citizens” in the urban areas. Does not prevent the bad guys, “Non-Law abiding citizens”, that do not follow DOJ requirements to obtain whatever firearms they choose.
            IMHO any restrictions imposed on Law abiding citizens but not enforced on the criminals is ludicrous.

        • Leonard

          Dana actually lied by omission. She omitted the first part of the 2 minute exchange about the second amendment. Carson said, “we have a reason for the second amendment, people have a right to own weapons.” By just quoting his response to gun types, she made him look anti-2nd… and that is a liberal tactic! Dana has lost my trust and “RSPECT.”

      • JpRAustin

        “Bad mouth” ? What are you reading?

      • JenB

        You don’t have to fly. it is easier to NOT fly than to move to another state or geographical location. Flying is temporary. Bad analogy. Maybe if you lived on an airplane24/7, literally, it would be a better analogy. I do not see Dana bad mouthing Carson in these tweets. I do not think bad mouthing means what you think it means.

      • CommonSense4America

        Get this straight,,,flying is a privilege,,,not a right.

    • R Soliai

      What Constitution?

      • conservativechick

        That document Obama & CO. hate because a bunch of old, racist white guys wrote it?

      • shortcuttt

        Good point!

    • Patriot077

      There was an article a couple months ago on American Thinker about Ben Carson and his positions and background. Well worth the read.
      I agree with Dana, btw. There should be no bargaining away of our Constitutional rights. Carson has much to offer, but I would rather he focus on how we can fix education.

    • jabbermule

      I bet libs will be really glad to hear you say that. Here comes Hillary, 2016.

    • Gloria

      hmm your concerned about gun rights but you don’t seem to be concerned about our current POTUS who is dismantling our constitution? something wrong here

    • SideTraKd

      I don’t agree with Carson’s position, there, but I completely disagree with Dana on this one, as well.

      He’d still make a wonderful president, and this isn’t an issue for me because, for one, I don’t see him making it as a priority, and two, I doubt he would get anywhere with it, if he did.

      We need to stop with this single-issue litmus test crap. While we continually search for the “perfect” candidate that doesn’t exist anywhere on the planet, the liberals are busying themselves with destroying the best country on Earth.

      Stopping them should be a MUCH higher priority than fighting amongst ourselves.

      • AZGunslinger

        What “single-issue” litmus test are you referring to? This is about supporting and defending the ENTIRE Constitution. Not just bits and pieces.

        No where in the 2nd Amendment does it say …. firearms are only for those people who live in rural areas, or only if the local authorities thinks you need a firearm, and then only a firearm of their choosing.

        People like you need to stop capitulating and settling for ANYBODY with an R after their name.

        • SideTraKd

          I’m not settling for anything. I am saying that we need to stop letting Democrats tear this country apart just because the candidate with the ideology closest to ours doesn’t meet 100% of our expectations.

          And that is EXACTLY what we’ve been doing.

          Carson’s comments were in passing. Even if he was set in stone on it, and it was something he was pushing for (which neither case is true), it isn’t like he would get his way.

          In all other aspects, he is an AMAZING candidate for president.

          Quit rejecting people without thinking just because of one comment made in passing that you find objectionable.

          • AZGunslinger

            When it comes to the Constitution, I take it all seriously. If a candidate cannot discern what’s constitutional from what is unconstitutional then he won’t get my vote.

            I seriously doubt Dr Carson is a person who is incapable of discerning the difference between the two. This means he is making a conscience decision to either support or not support the Constitution.

            I will vote accordingly.

          • SideTraKd

            You mean like when he said this…?

            Beck: “what about the 2nd amendment?”
            Carson: “We have a reason for the second amendment, people have a right to own weapons.”

            Hrmm… Sounds like he supports it, to me.

          • AZGunslinger

            Nice selective editing, Nancy. “But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic
            weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live. I think if
            you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that
            semi-automatic weapon is going to
            fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,”
            Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by
            yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no
            problem with that.”

            I guess not so much if you happen live in an urban setting which, coincidentally, is where you need a semi-auto the most.

      • ginny

        Brilliantly said.

    • Johnny Right

      It doesn’t matter if Ben Carson wants to limit the 2nd amendment. Obama wants to do the same thing- how’s that working out for him? It’s not happening.

    • shortcuttt

      interesting that this post which happens to defend Dana has not been cycled out like the rest of the post on this thread. creepy going ons on twichy, just saying……

    • TeeJaw

      Widespread gun ownership by citizens is more necessary than ever as a check on the over militarization of the police. Disarming citizens now would invite the insidious emergence of a police state. And the sudden emergence of a crime ridden society of predators and prey.

    • Kenneth L. Jones

      Wasn’t Dr. Carson first introduced into the main stream media at/during an Obama get together … all these politicians are making me paranoid, going to have to take a couple days off.
      The man, Dr. Carson, does seem to be highly intelligent!

    • Terence Sommer

      I agree.

  • almarquardt

    I also couldn’t agree more. He would be better placed as Surgeon General or even the HHS Secretary.

    • colonialmarine

      Dr. Carson would be well qualified to serve as the HHS Secretary. He has well demonstrated his understanding of the plethora of public policy failures that afflict ObamaCare & an unquestioned willingness to disembowel it.

      As an added bonus, in his role as Cabinet Secretary it is certain he would quickly & fully expose the korruptocratic maggots now infesting the Sebelius House of Horrors. The Ben Carson we’ve come to know would have no fear or hesitancy when it came time to proffer evidence of these crimes both to our Congress & a newly confirmed Attorney General Gowdy.

      “ObamaCare is the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.”
      Dr. Ben Carson

    • OneThinDime

      He needs to be THOROUGHLY vetted. He’s an admitted Obama voter, twice. Says a lot when race trumps the Constitution. There is NO WAY Obama didn’t have a hand in setting up that breakfast to mislead Americans yet again.

      • thinker


      • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

        If you mean the breakfast where Dr. Carson came out swinging against Obamacare..

        He didn’t get the response from Dr. Carson he wanted, did he?

        Ronald Reagan used to be a democrat, that alone isn’t grounds to disqualify him.. Many democrats woke up after 911 to what democrat appeasement had led to.. it’s possible his awakening came later than some, but that doesn’t mean it DIDN’T come..

        I can accept he may come forward with ideas that put him outside the bases mainstream, and just not be our guy.. I think it’s way too soon to slam the door, given he hasn’t addressed gun rights directly.

        If he falls short, he falls short..

        but let’s hear him out first.

        • OneThinDime

          You might want to check out the Hannity show where he admitted he voted for Obama and doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment for people who live in populated areas. Dana has a link, also check The Right Scoop.
          Unbelievable that anyone would want another unqualified person in our White House. Do you think Carson spewing nonsense at Iran would be helpful? He’s out for $$$ and raked it in after the staged breakfast. There is no way Obama didn’t know and no way Carson didn’t have a written speech pre-approved.
          Reagan switched tickets to win the ticket because he knew he could not win the Democrat nomination. And Reagan was dead by 9/11/01.

          • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

            I haven’t made up my mind on who to support, because we don’t even know who’s running yet.

            and if you’re that cynical about Dr. Carson, and Ronald Reagan, I doubt we’d agree on much. Reagan changed parties in the 60’s, hardly because he couldn’t win the dem nomination, he never tried too.. he never even ran for president till 76,..

            how his being alive or dead on 911 makes no sense, I never suggested that was why he changed parties.. I mentioned we had quite a few converts in 01, who woke up to the democrats had become, just as Reagan had back in the 60’s.

   Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004)

            and he was alive in 01..

            Since he changed parties before running for governor of California,. and was president as a republican from Jan. 1981 to Jan. 1989,… I can’t imagine why you’d think I was suggesting he changed parties after 911.. how old are you?..

            It’s pretty low to tell us, you actually believe Dr. Carson’s speech was vetted by Obama’s people.. and it was all about $$$…


            You have to be among the 5 or 6 who actually would believe that. My wife voted for Clinton once in 94,, she was a democrat when I married her.. she has since walked from the democrat party and voted for Bush, McCain, then Romney..

            Do not tell me people can’t change parties when the party shifts away from them..

            and no.. it’s not always about money.. in my experience, folks who make wild accusations about some public figure being all about the money, and using that smear, because they are angry, and simply have nothing else..

            Is that why he became a world class pediatric brain surgeon too?………. gee can’t imagine why that line isn’t filled with the unemployed..

            People who have the drive, talent and will to become world class anything, aren’t so base as to be driven ONLY by money.. he’s already wealthy, always will be..

            You think he invited a left wing sh*tstorm in his life, because he simply wants to bilk the rube conservatives?

            where does that kind of raging cynicism come from?

    • Happy Dragon

      Better him as president than Rubio or Christie. He’s no RINO. No candidate is going to be perfect. All that said, I would prefer Jindal or Cruz or West before Carson.

      • OneThinDime

        He’s worse, he voted for Obama and dead silent on illegal alien amnesty. Likely he’d support it for “compassionate reasons” which violates Constitution. Jindal is pro-amnesty and Cruz is creeping that way. West is Best!

        • ginny

          West is unelectable. I like him a lot, but he went out of his way when he held his Congressional office to be provocative and in-your-face — exactly what our AG is, exactly what the American people want LESS of — he’s the opposite of Dr. Carson. I agree with you that Carson’s stance on immigration could be problematic….but I don’t even know what my stance is on that! What I’d like is for Carson to be at the top of the ticket, Cruz to be his VP. But let’s just get him in the race first — with Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Scott Walker…that would be a helluva debate!

          • OneThinDime

            West is more electable than people want to admit. The amnesty boys are out, polls show even Dem voters are against another amnesty. People want the truth and West tells it. Carson is not only unqualified, his voting for Obama and anti-2nd amendment will defeat him and empower the Democrats (and no not Hillary, she’s a diversion from their real candidate)

            If you don’t know your position on immigration, I fear for this country. Learn from the Reagan destruction, 1.9 million Americans lost their jobs because they were replaced by illegals, divorce skyrocketed as did welfare. He played a huge role in the destruction of the family unit.

            These are the illegals Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, paul Ryan want to rewrd w/amnesty and Ted Cruz with visas to remain in the US.

          • ginny

            It’s not that I don’t know what I think is right. It’s “right”, I suppose, to deport everyone who is here illegally, and they can take their minor children with them — oh wait, they are American citizens and who’s going to round them up….do you see the problem here? If I was emperor, I’d give them green cards to work and pay taxes legally but never give them a path to citizenship. No family unification, deport all criminals, and spend whatever it takes to seal the border(s.) I’d fast-track all the people who have been patiently waiting legally, giving priority to anyone who has something this country needs. But I’m not running for POTUS, mass deportation is not even close to doable, and I think the best we can hope for is putting off the issue until conservatives take power (either in Congress or the presidency), stop the path to citizenship and make voter ID mandatory in every state, Know anybody (electable) who is advocating that?

          • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

            I agree, people are letting emotions get in the way of common sense. We can deport a lot of illegals, but once their children are citizens, like it or not, it’s just not going to happen..

            Why we need to secure the borders now,.. then sort out the rest later.

            The folks who are demanding we deport them all, no matter what, are missing the point, about 75% of the public disagrees. To run on that as a platform is suicide.

            What we can do, is deport the single people with no family here who run across the border to make money, sell drugs, break the laws, that one we can get most people behind. Deporting entire families?

            You can see the DNC running Nazi cattle car comparison commercials already.. NO I am not saying it’s the same, I’m saying they are saying exactly that.

            We all were immigrants, our families at one time, we need to take a breath, and think this through.. I agree with Ginny, there aren’t any easy answers here, just screaming deport them all will achieve nothing.

            Secure the border first..

            then we’ll do something about the ones already here.. sorting out who wants to be an American, and who doesn’t should be easy enough… then maybe a ten year wait till thy become citizens, maybe only permanent residency with no citizenship.. but shipping them all back across the border will not happen, reasonable people know this.

            The only certainty, is the democrats will simply lie on any deal, so we need a Republican Congress Senate and president to fix this.. we can’t trust the democrats to not cheat, they’ve done it too many times already to buy that bridge again.

          • ginny

            Obviously I agree with you 1000%. I think the biggest challenge at this point is keeping the House from making a deal on immigration before the November elections. But no matter what, it’s going to be next to impossible to get the kind of deal you described above — the best we can hope for is if we do get a majority in the Senate (and every single Republican needs to GET POLITICALLY INVOLVED and VOTE for Republicans WHETHER YOU LIKE THEM OR NOT) so we can at least get a border security deal with some teeth in it first, then when that’s done, deal with the rest. As you said, the American people are in favor of that, and deporting criminals and making some sort of accommodation for children who were brought here…it’s the kind of incremental but popular stances that I wish Ted Cruz had staked our debt ceiling debate on over Obamacare — and forced Obama to veto those common sense proposals and we wouldn’t have had the negative setbacks that we suffered last year.

          • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

            Reagan cut a deal, for a one time amnesty, which the democrats and certain GOP politicians completely ren*ged on.

            Congress lied to him to get a deal.. that is the lesson, never trust Congress..

            Your bitterness towards even the conservative mainstream, as well as the libertarian wing, makes me wonder if you aren’t a liberal concern troll…

            NOBODY is pure enough for you..

            The first clue, nobody ever has been utterly pure on the issues we all have, and never will be. You can be as cynical as you want, we still have to decide who our flag bearer will be. I can almost with absolute certainty tell you, he or she will have at least one position you hate.

            That’s a human calculation we all have to make.. you pick the best choice, based on the greatest similarities to your own values..

            Trashing the field to uplift your choice is exactly why we couldn’t beat Obama in 2012..

            We’re already running against a corrupt bearucracy and democrat party, a sold out media so openly rooting for the left, I’m surprised they don’t start the News playing the Soviet anthem..

            having our own trash our line up too?

            this is why republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory..

            Too many on the right have decided to raise their guy up, by sliming the rest. Reagan was right about that, his 11th commandment was never a rule, but a guide.. talking trash about our own just hurts us..

            If you disagree say so.. but don’t throw mud at them.

            Just makes middle ground conservatives like me tune you out.. I like them all in certain way’s.. love Colonel West,.. as well as Dr. Carson.. but we can’t get anywhere by praising one while denouncing the rest.

            More folks would listen to your argument, such as it is, if you just said I disagreed with A…. instead of announcing Ronald Reagan ruined you life..

            WTF… re-ne-ged is caught and filter blocked?


          • alanstorm

            “…he went out of his way when he held his Congressional office to be
            provocative and in-your-face — exactly what our AG is, exactly what the
            American people want LESS of…”

            Are you sure about that? After observing the behavior of the milquetoast GOP vis-a-vis the Obama administration, I want MORE “In Your Face” from actual conservatives. Playing nice and being mannerly is only enabling the opposition.

          • JenB

            West is unelectable,but Cruz isn’t? I find the two of them to be a dream ticket. West lost because of redistricting. they wanted him out because he was outspoken and it happened. please do not speak for what the American people want less of. I want a fighter, not one who gets along.We have had those for the last 20+ years and look at where we are. Cruz is just as outspoken as West. Every non-liberal I know wants a fighter and we are getting really tired of the “go along to get along.”

          • ginny

            Nobody’s advocating anyone who’ll “go along to get along.” Ronald Reagan was a “fighter”, but he wasn’t purposely provocative. Scott Walker is certainly a fighter, and I love him. And you can’t get much more of a “fighter” than Ben Carson right in front of Congress and Obama! I love Cruz, but I question his judgment. He did a lot of damage when he demanded unfunding Obamacare and the Republicans were blamed for shutting down the government. Instead, if he had been politically smarter and more prudent, he would’ve demanded repealing the medical device tax, and insisting that Congress be covered by Obamacare, and Big Labor & Big Business can’t get carve-outs — positions very popular with the American people but which would’ve put Obama on the defensive when he vetoed them. The majority of Americans didn’t want the whole program defunded, and Cruz’s actions cost us dearly (despite the disaster that the ACA rollout was; the country hates it, but Republicans still haven’t recovered from the fallout.) When Carson says the first thing he’ll do is authorize the Keystone Pipeline, then go about dismantling Obamacare…he has a lot more credibility and ability (esp. since he’s already putting together the conservative answer to it before the Nov. elections) than anyone else in the race. (My 2nd choice is Walker, but I have no idea how he’ll poll against Hillary.)

  • Mr_Wrestling_XIII

    I love Dana, but would she support a Reagan presidency if he ran today? Reagan restricted gun rights in CA. Ben would be a great president like Reagan. He never said anything about removing the 2nd amendment.

    • NRPax

      If you are talking about any restrictions, even ones based on something idiotic like geographic location, then you are talking about removing the 2nd Amendment or at least making it harder to exercise. We already have enough liberals pushing for that, we don’t need a conservative to do it as well.

      • almarquardt

        Precisely. To limit the 2nd Amendment in a particular area means that we could limit the others as well. Where would it end?

      • OneThinDime

        He is not a conservative. His ego is in runaway mode just like Obama’s.

    • Ben Bollman

      Sorry, but that weak “would he/she support Reagan today” argument is the same one that liberals use and shouldn’t be used by any conservative with common sense. I also don’t see how being more conservative than Reagan is bad thing. Regardless of him being a great President he made mistakes like amnesty and did expand government in a lot of areas. We should learn from Reagan’s mistakes instead of making the same ones and stop chiding people for being more conservative than him.

    • OneThinDime

      Would you support another Reagan amnesty? Reagan did forever damage to America with his amnesty and is why we have 11-20 million more illegals here today committing violent crimes against Americans and set free by Holder and Obama. Reagan also lifted the ban on attorneys advertising. Do you enjoy their “we’ll sue” commercials night and day driving up health care costs? And let’s not forget about the reverse mortgages that devastate families when the parents die and the house must be sold to pay off the reverse mortgage and interest leaving $0 equity to cover other debts and funeral expenses.

      • nickdqwk

        Reagan’s sin was that he actually trusted the democrats and took them at their word that the borders would be enforced and existing law would be adhered to.

  • thedumbblonde

    Surgeon General is normally the career crowning glory of a military physician. Why the hell would Carson take that step down?

  • stellatruman

    I could see him in some cabinet level position, but not president

    • Rosalie

      Maybe in a position to get rid of Obamacare.

      • OneThinDime

        Repealing Obama is a bill and a vote, in the House, then the Senate, then President West signing it into law.

        • ginny

          You’re dreaming.

          • OneThinDime

            I never said this Congress. That is the process, it has NOTHING to do with the Surgeon General. Constitution 101. I think SchoolHouse Rock is on YouTube.

          • ginny

            What on earth are you talking about? If West could not even retain his seat, how on earth do you think he could win anything bigger? The easiest way to repeal Obamacare is to elect Carson as POTUS. First, he would authorize the Keystone pipeline, then get to work undoing ACA.

          • Sonya A. Willis

            Thank the RINOS for that who are at war against Constitutional Conservatives.

          • ginny

            I totally agree with you, but they’re not going away…..and neither is the hostile press. We have to take the world as it is (totally screwed up, imho, not as we wish it to be.

  • Rock

    Remember, it was just a quick thought. His opinion could change. He didn’t totally refuse the aright to Bear Arms. Perhaps he needs a conversation to change his mind. Compared to what we have, he’s a pretty good option. Don’t totally rule him out since he’s not a career politician. Even the best watch on the planet can be slightly off. Don’t throw it away.

  • tops116 ✓Quipper

    I would oppose a Carson candidacy simply because he has no experience. He’s qualified to be Surgeon General, but president? We’ve already had to endure six years of rampant idiocy and mind-numbing failure because the Left thought the presidency was something that lent itself to on-the-job training. No question that Carson is smarter than Obama, but the next person to get the job needs rock solid executive experience.

    Guess that rules Hillary out, too. 😉

    • Rosalie

      Hillary has done nothing to brag about so I agree with you wholeheartedly. And then we’d have to put up with Slick Willy.

    • Bigfoot Steve

      I hate to break it to you, but the last 6 years wouldn’t have been better if only Obama were more experienced at being a liberal.

    • ginny

      Abraham Lincoln had almost no political experience (one term as a legislator, less than Obama)…but he had strong principles, convictions and an incredible love for and belief in our country that I don’t think our current POTUS has. Also, Ben Carson can defeat Hillary (she needs to get over 80% of the black vote in all the swing states; Herman Cain running against Obama got 40%, and Carson is huge in the black community; I believe he’d get well over 50%) & I don’t believe anyone else can defeat Hillary. I love Scott Walker, and he certainly has the right credentials…but Hillary would trounce him. Let someone like Ted Cruz or Susana Martinez be his running mate, he could surround himself with the likes of John Bolton, Art Laffer, Michelle Rhee or Steve Perry in education, Bill Whittle (as press secretary? YAY….!) and he’d be just fine. Unlike our current prez, he’s humble enough — and smart enough — to surround himself with the best people to get his agenda accomplished….starting with healthcare and education and spending. As Wm Buckley said, I’m supporting the most conservative person WHO CAN WIN!

    • alanstorm

      I see your point, but there is a difference between an accomplished surgeon, who would not BE that if he were unable to recognize reality, and a puffed-up narcissist who refuses to even look at it.

      I am of the opinion that executive experience is desirable, certainly, but brainpower and common sense (notably lacking in this administration) can make up for it.

      In any case, LIBERALS can hardly make any noises about his lack of experience, can they? That would be RACIST! (I admit, contemplating the thought of calling liberal whiners RACIST! at every criticism of President Carson gives me a little grin.)

  • Joshua Embrey

    I’m with Dana 100% on this. While I’ll never find a candidate with whom I agree 100%, even a hint of dissent on this issue is unacceptable. The more I hear this man speak, the less impressed I become.

  • TJ

    The office of president should not be your first elected office, even if you are the worlds top neurosurgeon. Regardless on how you are on rights.

    • OneThinDime

      Who named him World’s top neurosurgeon? Let’s remember he too rode the affirmative action train and was preferably hired because of race. Not much different there than Obama.

      • JimmyNeutron

        I am not criticizing anyone criticizing Carson. That’s all good and a strong vetting needs to take place. To say that Carson is a product of Affirmative Action though – that’s simply the one of the more stupid things I’ve read in a while. Do you seriously think Johns Hopkins would name him head of pediatric neurosurgery for race? Was it affirmative action that caused him to be the first doctor on earth to separate Siamese twins co-joined at the brain/head…and have both survive and thrive? What of his other advancements – seizure surgery and such – was that affirmative action that caused that surgical excellence? Seriously dumb post.

        • OneThinDime

          Do a little research, he’s an AA boy. And yes I do believe Hopkins would do that. Any hospital, college etc and business that receives gov’t contracts MUST meet racial quotas. For God’s sake, Colin Powell is a General because of his mixed race.

          • ginny

            Your insistence on this lie is not going to make it smell any better. Do the research yourself. And whatever you “believe” without doing that research and finding out you’re wrong is irrelevant.

          • JimmyNeutron

            You are in practice no different than Toure Nesbit. Toure sees “White privilege” as the only reason whites get ahead (or that blacks fall behind). You seem to be taking the opposite – that the only reasons blacks get ahead (or whites fall behind) is because of affirmative action. Two sides of the same coin – you are both making race-based arguments. Both sides of that coin are equally worthless and both sides of that coin diminish any kind of success…which as conservatives we do not need to be taking apart anyone’s success – simply because there’s too damn little of it anymore.

            The idea that Carson got through Yale with honors, medical school and rose to his position at one of the best hospitals in the world doing amazing work and saving many lives…guess what – a kid on an operating table having their brain worked on doesn’t know about affirmative action – they will not successfully come through the operation because of the surgeons race, only because of the surgeons skill. Carson actually has a “scorecard” measured in lives saved and improved. That scorecard is based on a metric not measured in you are anyone else’s racebaiting.

            I understand disagreeing with his 2nd Amendment views. I understand disagreeing with any number of his political views. What I do not understand is how attributing his success as a surgeon to nothing but affirmative action is in any way helpful. Let’s get away from the stupid, incorrect assumptions. We don’t need Toure Nesbit type thinking on our side.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Do a little research, he’s an AA boy. And yes I do believe Hopkins would do that.

            Do they get extra-special AA points for making him Chief of Neurosurgery after they already hired him, or something?

      • ginny

        You so do not know what you’re talking about. Read his book and educate yourself. This man is so far from being “affirmative-actioned in” it’s not even funny. And “not much different than Obama…?!!” Other than half the pigment of his skin, he has NOTHING in common with Obama.

        • OneThinDime

          You are the type Carson hooked into putting more money in his pocket. Black to black. Writing a book about themself. Going through school on AA. Preferential hiring due to AA. Wanting to be president with ZERO experience. Making money off every word. Inflating their ego laughing at the Bots that follow their every word. A lot in common! BTW, Carson VOTED for Obama. Hum, maybe race there too?

          • ginny

            And you know this how, genius? Have you read his books or researched his background — do you know the grades he had to get into Yale? He got there on an academic scholarship — he didn’t need AA. (And unlike our current POTUS, all his records are available.) And were you in the voting booth with him? Care to share how you “know” the lies that you’re spreading? By the way, only one book he wrote is about himself — the rest are about policy, America, inspiration, etc…and the next one, ONE NATION, contains prescriptions about what we all need to do to unite and right this ship. BTW, I suppose it was affirmative action that motivated the German hospital to ask him to separate the infant twins joined at the head…or the parents of the girl having seizures every few minutes to agree to let him remove an entire hemisphere of her brain or thousands of the other delicate and groundbreaking procedures he performed successfully….just to have crackers and racists like you disparage his accomplishments and call him (and us) names — the last refuge of the 3-year-old who has no arguments. You’re pathetic.

        • OneThinDime

          I would love to do more research by Carson’s records are SEALED. Remind you of the halfrican in the WH????? And of course Carson is compassionate about illegal aliens. Well these 34 raped NC children in 1 MONTH. Still undecided about immigration?

          • ginny

            I’m not undecided about it. I just don’t have your genius political mind that will get….who, exactly, elected to enact what exact policies that you “know” will solve the problem? Have no problem with deporting criminals to jails in their home countries (much worse than ours), spending whatever is necessary to seal our borders and prevent any illegals already here from ever getting on a path to citzenship. And having strict voter ID laws in every state, to start. Know anybody electable who would do any of those things? (And btw, if Carson is ultimately persuaded to throw his hat in the ring and becomes the Republican candidate, all his records will be available to the press and the public. The fact that YOU can’t get your grubby hands on them — or anybody else’s, for that matter, doesn’t mean that they’re “sealed.”

      • michael s

        See. I knew it always a black person has to be a product of affirmative action. I m not surprised this is being said about Dr Carson.

        • alanstorm


  • mrspinky85

    If she judges Carson on a civil right, then how is that any different than liberals who only vote for the same people because of one issue? There are no politicians that you can agree with on every single issue. That person does not exist. I think he would make a great Surgeon General, though.
    And assuming that people haven’t looked into Carson’s other positions is a bad thing to say as well. She doesn’t know what a person knows about Ben Carson. Maybe gun rights isn’t their one issue deal breaker.

    • NRPax

      So out of curiosity: How many rights are you willing to give up or have restricted?

      • mrspinky85

        I am not willing to give up any rights. Not especially since I helped defend them. I believe in the 2nd amendment especillay if Uncle Sam allowed me to carry a gun for him, I should be able to carry it to protect my family. However, I just called out this site on the hypocrisy.
        If a liberal only votes for a person that supports abortion and that’s it people on here will talk about how they are a one issue voter. If being a one issue voter is not okay for democrats than it should not be for conservatives.

        • J_W_C_NM

          You give up rights every day. In just the past couple decades, you’ve given up property rights to environmental restrictions,
          currency rights to civil forfeiture and FATCA restrictions, travel rights to TSA and Border Patrol checkpoints (where they also use drug sniffing dogs without probable cause). Communication privacy rights have succumbed to the NSA. The war on drugs has all but eliminated the right to be secure in your person, houses, or papers. The ACA limits health care choices. Dietary restrictions will be next.

          • mrspinky85

            I personally didn’t decide to give up those rights. I said I was not willingly giving them up.

        • NRPax

          What hypocrisy? It is not in our interests to have a candidate that is against a right that we as citizens have like the right to keep and bear arms. By way of contrast, abortion is not covered anywhere under the Constitution.

          • mrspinky85

            Any person in the role of President or Congress is suppose to uphold the Constitution regardless of he/she personally feels that’s why we have a written Constitution and ways to get rid of those who break their oath. On another note, my original point was lost.

        • OneThinDime

          The Constitution is not debatable. And that’s Dana’s point. The Second Amendment is an unalienable right that not even king Carson can take away.

          • mrspinky85

            You are right it’s not whether his personal feelings differ or not. When did he say he wanted to even run? That’s why we are suppose to have checks on each branch. Further there is no guarantee someone who once elected won’t change their position. At least he didn’t pander.

          • OneThinDime

            He’s made numerous sly comments about “I’ll run if I have to”. He’s selling books just like Palin. Came to the TV cameras with an already large ego, is paid HUGE sum by FOX to be a mouthpiece. Funny, no one asks him to his face why he voted for Obama based on race instead of voting for the good of America.

    • Steve__Jacobson

      Like she said, it’s not an issue it’s a civil right.

      • mrspinky85

        It’s not the only civil right. And, there are no politicians who views line up with every single thing you believe in. Also, any politician can say they support something until they are in office. Look at how Obama evolved on gay marriage. My point was that if we are to call out liberal who are one issue voters than the same should be for conservatives. Also, she makes an assumption that people don’t know what Ben Carson stands for.

        • Darth Venomous✓unmedicated

          It’s not the only civil right

          It may as well be. Take our self-defense away from us, and see how quickly the rest of them go, too.

        • Ben Bollman

          Sorry but I’m not willing to give up any civil right just because I have other civil rights.

          • mrspinky85

            Never said that we should give it up. What I said was, that dismissing someone only because of one thing is the same thing people on this site claim liberals are wrong for. I support all our civil rights and have done my part to defend them also.

          • AD1980

            You continue to compare policy issues with civil rights. They are not the same thing.

            For example:
            Supporting the Fair Tax or not – policy preference

            Supporting removing our right to peacefully assemble – Civil Right

          • mrspinky85

            I can admit that I mixed it up. But, I don’t want to be so partisan that we blindly look past people. And just because Carson differs on 2A doesn’t mean he would infringe on our rights because the executive isn’t suppose to write laws but protect them as they are written. My point I was attempting but obviously failed to do was that neither side should pick or disregard someone over one subject. Many politicians pay lip service to win. I prefer people who’s actions line up with their words. But with Carson we have no votes of his or elected history to judge. I, too like Dana left the liberal side. That doesn’t mean we all on here have think the same.

          • Ben Bollman

            But when you say things like “It’s not the only civil right” then that indicates that you don’t understand the problem. Anyone willing to compromise even one civil right means they aren’t fit to be the leader of the country.

          • mrspinky85

            The leader of our country is supposed to be held to the Constitution regardless of their personal feelings about it. I don’t know what her issue encompasses but my gripe with Twitchy is people attack liberals who only vote for one subject. I have seen people attacked for not voting for a candidate over one position.

          • Ben Bollman

            But if a leader has the chance to sign a law that limits our rights don’t you want them to be on the right side of the issue? As Dana said it isn’t an issue like abortion or gay marriage, it is a Constitutional right we are talking about here so I want my leader to defend it unconditionally instead of saying one group of people has more rights to it than another based on where they live. It is a RIGHT that shall not be infringed and not an issue up for debate.

          • mrspinky85

            I personally don’t want Carson because he hasnt acted on his words yet. Anyone can say anything to get in office. Judge someone only on this right instead of the whole person is what I’m getting at here.

          • mrspinky85

            Also, I believe the 2A shall not be infringed. I also believe no politician exists that follows all our own personal feelings. Further, our Congress is guilty for not checking the Executive for not following the Constitution which both branches swore to uphold.

          • Ben Bollman

            I can name a few that share all of my own personal feelings: Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Mike Lee.

          • mrspinky85

            That’s good for you. Not trying to be snarky. I know I have to do research to see where I fall. I just started questioning this whole system since 2010. So, I’m fairly new. I do think this conversation is a learning experience. Most people don’t go outside their own bubble to learn..

        • OneThinDime

          Dana is assuming nothing. Look at Twitter and other social media. The cries for Carson for President started during the prayer breakfast. Conservatives need to stop chasing shiny objects and learn to vet and vet deeply to ensure another traitor doesn’t end up in our WH.

    • J_W_C_NM

      How many guns should Bloods, Crips, MS13ers, and Latin Kings have. Do you support their civil right to have automatic, or semi-automatic, weapons?

      • Kent Jenkins

        Yes , as long as they are not criminals , or use the weapons in commission of a crime

      • mrspinky85

        These groups wouldn’t be so brave or beholden to their weapons if more good people keep theirs.

      • michael s

        Notice you left out La Cosa Nostra,the biggest gang .

        • mike_in_kosovo

          News flash – it’s not the 1950s anymore.

      • Patrick Chester

        Yet the criminal gangs you cite to scare people won’t be affected by gun control laws. Just non-criminals.

        How strange.

    • Bigfoot Steve

      So, as long as your husband agrees with you on everything else, you’re okay with him banging little boys in the tree house out back?

      Newsflash: All issues aren’t equal, and some issues absolutely should be deal breakers.

      • mrspinky85

        That is not the same thing. And if you are married, you do know that there are issues that you compromise on. Yes, there are issues that you are set in stone about but I think that there are no politicians that do everything we agree with. Picking just one issue to hump on is either okay for voters or it is not. Many pick on liberals who only vote for women’s rights so I called her on that.

      • ButteryWench

        First it is pedophilia to “bang little boys in the tree house out back” which is criminal, so your argument makes no sense. Second amendment rights should never be bargained away. Dr. Carson is a smart man, but is as qualified to be president as the dumbass we have in office right now.

  • Gallatin

    I’m with Dana, Dr. Carson’s stand on gun control is a nonstarter for me.

    • Bigfoot Steve

      Not to mention his support of amnesty.

      • Sonya A. Willis

        Yep, just discovered that he’s in favor of a guest worker program and thinks that deportation is the moral low road. Sorry, but a sovereign nation has every right to deport illegal invaders.

  • Richard J Sunkle

    I agree with those who say he’s a great spokesman for conservatism but I don’t want him in Washington.

    Maybe mayor of Detroit where he wouldn’t have any say over guns but could promote conservatism.

  • defiant12314

    As far as I am AWARE, Dr Carson isn’t against the 2nd Amendment per say, It’s just that he does support certain restrictions on it and that that these restrictions should be determined on a state by state basis.

    • louisiana_mom

      “Shall not be infringed”… doesn’t say anything about restrictions. Restrictions are the same as banning.

    • alanstorm

      What part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear to you? Are you unaware of the history of the second amendment?

      • defiant12314

        As Louisiana mom’s comment which echoed yours along with my response seems to have disappeared, I shall tell you what I told her and (with further hindsight) expand on it.

        I was merely stating that although he supports the 2nd amendment per say, (to my knowledge) Dr Carson is in favor (on a state by state basis) of some restrictions. Now I believe that these views MAY be a result of Dr Carson’s upbringing in Detroit and seeing kids with gunshot wounds.

        As a man who holds to otherwise solidly socially conservative views, I guess that he is open to reasonable argument as to why this should not be the case, unlike liberals who are against the 2nd amendment full stop.

        As such I don’t think that his current views are a complete deal breaker, I would think that if he were to sit down with representatives from Gun’s rights groups he would come around to our point of view.

    • linnilu

      We already have over 20 thousand “restrictions” on our 2A rights. We do not need more, not even “certain” ones from Dr. Carson. He is a good man, and I will vote for him if he wins the nomination, but he is not my first or even second choice.

  • Bryan Ewbank

    I think there’s an air gap between rights and what Dr. Carson said. He said he’d rather that you didn’t have a gun in a populated area. That does not mean, necessarily, that he wants to restrict that right.

    By comparison, there are some people that I would prefer not to exercise their first amendment rights :-), but that doesn’t mean I will make any effort to restrict those rights….

    I’ll just cover my ears, cross my eyes, and stick out my tongue

    • Maxx

      Yours is a reasonable observation. Too many people mistake a belief for an intent. I don’t think Carson would make the effort to restrict gun rights in the way he articulates above. It’s just his own personal opinion. Since he, from my perspective, doesn’t fancy himself a future king, I don’t think chasing down restrictions on the Second Amendment is something that would be on his “to do” list if he ever was fortunate enough to be President. Plenty of us have opinions on matters we would not force into legislation.

      Now, having said that, I remain steadfast that the highest office in the land should not be a “learn as you go” position and while Dr. Carson’s intellect needs no clarifications, he’s not ready to be Commander in Chief.

      • mrspinky85

        This is one of the things I was thinking.

  • Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    I agree with her about people lionizing a candidate before knowing all their positions on issues.

    The left did that all over Wendy Davis. It’s absurd.

    • mrspinky85

      i agree with the statement if she knows people didn’t research him. However, from her post she assumes people don’t know his stances.

      • Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        I’d bet that a lot don’t.

        • mrspinky85

          You are right about that when I think about it. So, many seem surprised about Obama when his history has always pointed to socialism. I am guilty myself but I know from now on I will do my own research and form an opinion and not one that just that mimics talking points from either side.

          • Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If only everyone thought like you do! 😀

  • carmenta

    I think holding an opinion about constitutional rights and having a position on/actively challenging constitutional rights are very different. Dr Carson would be well suited to lots of positions within an administration, learning the craft, if he chooses to do that. I think he’s too green in a political sphere for a presidential run

    oops – I meant ‘green’ as in inexperienced – not as a racial slur against anyone of a color different than mine!

  • RanierWest

    twitter isn’t interacting with twitchy well, I couldn’t fav some of those dloesch tweets

  • mrspinky85

    I think my biggest issue is that we don’t have a record to judge Carson on. We can debate about his stances but many people take stances just to get elected. We can not judge someone just on what they say because that can change like the wind. We need to go by people’s actions. Since, he doesn’t have a record to go by I cannot fully see how his words line up with his actions as of yet.

    • ginny

      He has plenty of “records” to go by if you look at his priorities and what he constantly harps on (including at CPAC — reforming health care (something he knows a little about), the same with education (something he also has a lot of experience with), cutting our spending and getting the economy running again, and promoting a pro-growth energy policy, beginning with authorizing the Keystone pipeline. So gee, do you think that might be enough to keep him too busy to go after the things he doesn’t care about….like trying to make federal gun laws? Really???

  • BoscoBolt

    How many times does Carson have to say that HE IS NOT GOING TO RUN, before people finally get a clue?

    He’s not interested – he does not want to run for president in 2016 – he has said so MANY times, and his anti-2nd Amendment beliefs would prevent him from being nominated anyway.

  • Ben Bollman

    Agree with Dana and never really wanted him to be President even before I learned his position on gun rights. I’ve always thought his talents would be best used as head of HHS in order to clean up the health care system.

    • Maryland_Malcontent

      Wait, I thought we were sending HHS to the “Promised Land” when we took over.

      George Washington ran the country with only, what, 4 Cabinet positions. We shouldn’t need any more.

      • Ben Bollman

        Well, I’m all for getting rid of the HHS but I’d like someone with experience to at least be there to clean up the mess in the aftermath.

    • ginny

      And who do you think could beat Hillary to make him HHS Sec’y?

      • gary4205

        Sarah Louise Palin

        Got any other easy questions?

        • Harry A

          You are kidding yourself if you think Sarah Palin can win. Sarah Palin at the height of her popularity couldn’t even use her pull in her own state to get Lisa Murkowski out of office when she supported Joe Miller.

      • Ben Bollman

        Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Ben Carson shouldn’t even be in the conversation since one he has said he isn’t running and two has zero experience.

  • Ray Haight

    Meh. Ronald Reagan wasn’t perfect on gun control either. Depends on what she means by “deal killer.” Like wouldn’t vote for him in the general election versus Hillary Clinton? Or couldn’t support him in the primary?

  • Pingston

    And we see the Liberal logic still pervading claimed ‘ex-Liberal’ Dana Loesch. She wants an Obama, someone who says all the right things to her. Common sense doesn’t matter.

    She’d no doubt be against higher gun possession penalties for stolen and/or unregistered guns in high-crime ghettoes. Some things make sense, though. Have a registered gun, you’re good to go. Have an unregistered one and you’re in trouble. That’s how we’ll clear the streets of the repeat offenders who turn Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and Atlanta into killing zones. Geography does matter. It’s how we elect. It’s how we define states, counties and cities. It’s how we define property taxation. It should also be how we treat the curse of criminality, especially in the gangsta culture. In the meantime, the reformed Liberal applies her built-in Liberal logic, rather than the reasoning and understanding possessed by lifelong conservatives. Less than 13 years as a ‘conservative’ and Dana thinks she knows the litmus test. She doesn’t. She wants a conservative Obama, and that’s another disaster waiting to happen. I want a conservative who thinks, who appeals to all, and who wants to solve problems not just use them for partisan advantage.

    • gekkobear

      “common sense”?

      But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic
      weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live. I think if
      you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that
      semi-automatic weapon is going to
      fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,”

      “common sense” means “disarm the crime ridden inner cities”?

      Um, fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = more crime… why do they need more crime in cities?

      Why is more crime in cities “common sense” and asking that people be allowed to defend themselves especially in crime ridden areas “liberal logic”?

  • thinker

    Read Carson’s words…then comment. It is not as it is being portrayed.

  • MrApple

    I wholeheartedly agree with her.

  • Jedd McHead

    I hope he reconsiders his position on this issue even if he doesn’t run for office. He seems like such a logical and reasoned man in all other respects.

  • Michael Rice

    Absolutely agree. If you can conditionalize one right you can do it to all of them.

    It is the same when libs whine about abortion being a litmus test. Well, excuse me, I consider murder a big deal.

    Adhering to the Constitution is a bog deal to me, as well.

  • Booker

    Well, you can’t win them all. 2016 here we come! It will be interesting. That’s for sure.
    I have a couple of reservations about Rand as well.

    • Chevypowered

      2nd that (no pun intended)

      • Booker

        He’s a nice guy, though. Let’s see what happens come primary time.

  • Taxpayer1234

    The prez is supposed to uphold the Constitution. Being squishy on 2A is NOT an option.

    • mrspinky85

      He is suppose to uphold it squishy or not. What is suppose to happen is that if he tried not to be would have to answer to Congress.

      • gary4205

        How’s that “answering to Congress” thingy working out right now?

        You either respect ALL of our God Given RIGHTS or you don’t Period!

  • schizuki

    Put aside the “litmus test” talk for a moment. The fact is that NO Republican candidate can win being squishy on guns. Gun owners stayed home in 2012 because of Mitt’s unreliability. It’s non-negotiable. Besides, gun control is a losing issue in general. Even the freakin’ Democrats have learned that.

    Gun owners will not trust a man who doesn’t trust them.

  • schizuki

    Can we leave the leg-tingling over electrifyingly eloquent amateurs to the liberals and concentrate on an experienced (and equally principled) candidate?

    • ginny

      Like…..? Anyone who can beat Hillary? I love Scott Walker and Ted Cruz, but I don’t know if either one can beat her and the liberal machine that will put her in office.

      • gary4205

        Walker is for amnesty and wasn’t exactly against Obamacare all that much.

        You want a winner? She made the closing speech at CPAC!

        This isn’t exactly rocket surgery!

        Palin-Cruz, problems solved!

        • schizuki

          Sarah Palin has been doing nothing but talking since 2008. Again, let’s stop with the rock star bullsh**.

      • schizuki

        The liberal machine will use the same tactics against any candidate. May as well go all in with a principled libertarian conservative with a resume.

    • Sonya A. Willis


  • angeleyez

    . …. …. . The “DANA” show on THE BLAZE @ 5:00 PM Fridays is a most.
    . …. …. . The “DANA” show on THE BLAZE @ 5:00 PM Fridays is a most.

  • Scott Carroll

    Even though I love Carson’s personal story and his eloquence and passion as a proponent of conservatism, I just don’t think he’s ready for the top spot. He would work better as a VP pick in my opinion.

    Having said that, if Loesch considers that a “deal breaker,” one would be safe in assuming she wouldn’t have voted for Ronald Reagan either. He supported the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill.

    “The Brady Bill initially struggled for support in Congress, but was gaining ground by the latter days of Reagan’s predecessor, President George H.W. Bush. In a 1991 op-ed for the New York Times, Reagan voiced his support for the Brady Bill, saying the 1981 assassination attempt might have never happened if the Brady Bill had been law….Three years later, Congress had passed the Brady Bill and was working on another piece of gun control legislation, a ban on assault weapons. Reagan joined former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in a letter published in the Boston Globe that called on Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons. Later, in a letter to Rep. Scott Klug, a Wisconsin Republican, Reagan said the limitations proposed by the Assault Weapon Ban ‘are absolutely necessary’ and that it ‘must be passed.’

    • michael s

      Good to remind people about Ronald Reagan’s support for gun control. Considering how he’s depicted as so pro gun.

      • Scott Carroll

        Hey, nobody’s perfect. :)

    • Maryland_Malcontent

      Even “Saint Reagan” made some gaffes. At least he made these when he was out of office.

      • ginny

        Reagan’s damaging actions (and gullibility) on amnesty did a LOT of damage when he was in office. There is no electable candidate that is everything we want him to be. Me, I’ll gamble someone who reminds me of Lincoln, who had almost no political experience either. And he shares other traits with him as well — like integrity, humility, character, intelligence, (real) transparency, accountability, honor, love of country, extraordinary accomplishment (which would serve as a REAL role model to blacks) and strength. Not an experienced politician? As much a plus as a minus in my book.

        • Maryland_Malcontent

          I was referring to the anti-gun comments Reagan made, that were quoted in the OP. Amnesty in 86 was :(

          I’d personally like to avoid someone who is reminiscent of Lincoln. Not too keen on Presidents who arrest State Legislatures and hold American cities hostage. The PC weenies want to change it but the MD state song excoriates Lincoln for his misdeeds to the Free State.

          • ginny

            Jeez, I’m sorry I invoked Lincoln. How about Washington? Jefferson? You like any of those guys? Do all the qualities I mentioned count (whether shared by Lincoln or not…?) And you’re from Maryland…I’d think you might be willing to give the guy a chance and hear him out. And yes, Reagon made some bonehead moves, most specifically on amnesty. You have a perfect candidate? (Anyone who’s electable?)

          • gary4205

            Reagan would go on to say Amnesty was his greatest mistake and wished he could take it back.

            We’re not short of QUALIFIED presidential candidates for 2016.

            Let the democrat party have it’s monopoly on antiAmerican candiates!

          • ginny

            I take it you haven’t read any of Dr. Carson’s books, or you couldn’t possibly suggest that he’s “anti-American.” Yes, we could probably have thousands of “qualified” candidates for 2016 (all of whom are more qualified that our current POTUS), but who is electable? If someone like Dr. Carson would be endorsed by no less a conservative than Wm. Buckley, doesn’t he at least deserve a chance to be judged on the totality of his views & policies? Can’t we at least support his throwing his hat in the ring, then be judged against all the other great (Walker) but flawed (Paul) candidates? I am 100% certain that if he does, he will be educated not on the importance of the 2nd Amendment for the purposes of winning the nomination, but its effectiveness in protecting the very innocents he cares so deeply about.

          • Maryland_Malcontent

            I’ve followed Dr. Carson with interest but from what he has said he would not be the Presidential candidate that we need. Anyone familiar with Baltimore who wants to impose any sort of gun ban is out of touch with reality as all they have ever done has been to guarantee that the thugs are more heavily armed than their prey, the law-abiding citizen.

            Lincoln did a lot of good but he does serve as a reminder that a candidate with those good traits can turn out to be quite the despot. Lincoln abused the power of the President in ways that obama can, so far, only dream of.

  • midwestconservative

    I’d rather Carson either 1) keep on giving speeches or 2) run for something ( Senate?) in Maryland, or perhaps Michigan his birthstate. Too late for this year though.

  • Green Eyed Lady

    Dana Loesch ✔
    Carson’s past remarks on how gun rights should be determined by geographical location was unacceptable.

    I agree, Dana, that did it for me too.

    • Maryland_Malcontent

      Same here. He spent time in Baltimore, he should know better than most that anti-gun laws don’t work. No matter how many guns are banned/confiscated/bought back and no matter how much ammo the Feds buy up the gangs are still killing each other without missing a beat.

      They’ll have their automatic guns in the Big City, no matter what Dr. Carson has to say about it. Inner-city thugs are the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment :(

  • Peyton

    Atleast he was honest about his position. I’d guess half of the current names for GOP nomination don’t support 2nd amendment as much as they claim to in public.

  • Peyton

    Dana, remind me again how much Romney’s staunch support of the 2nd amendment is helping us during Mitt’s presidency… oh wait.

    • gary4205

      Wow That’s beyond stupid. But by all means, continue

      • Peyton

        What’s beyond stupid?

  • Geoffrey Claunch

    I love hearing Dr Carson speak. That said, if I can’t trust a politician to support-with every tool at their disposal-my right protect my family, my property, and myself using the most efficient tool every devised, how can I trust them with anything else?

  • eddie333

    Did Carson say he wanted the govt to limit gun ownership? To say “…I would rather you not have it.” could be taken as simply his personal preference. Ask me if I’m OK in a bar full of drunks carrying and I’d say I would rather they not have guns. So not saying they don’t have the right to have a gun or that they should not have a gun, just that under the circumstances, I’d would rather they left their gun at home. I’m not sure I explained that OK but maybe you’ll understand anyway.

    • Maryland_Malcontent

      He talked about a location-based ban, so people-law abiding people-who live in cities wouldn’t be able to leave their “assault” weapons at home. Dr. Carson should know that, despite the gun bans in Baltimore, the criminals always have the guns and that it is foolish to even think about a ban that can do nothing but give the criminals greater power than the law-abiding citizen.

  • Darianis

    To all the comments, how about VP and bring his eloquence to us all?

    • gary4205

      A VP must be qualified to be President, and Dr Carson, is not.

      You guys act like the Conservative movement is short of eloquent speakers It is NOT.

      • Maryland_Malcontent

        The VP has to be qualified to be Pres? Biden, obama’s “impeachment assurance”, had me thinking the opposite 😉

    • Pedro

      We’ve got a talker in the White House now.

      • Stryder51

        One huge difference. One has actual accomplishments and isn’t a pathological liar. The other was a community “organizer”.

    • Sonya A. Willis

      Uhhhh…one heartbeat away from the Presidency. NO!

  • Pedro

    Oh, come on. I like Dr. Carson. He has a lot of conservative ideas but as a Presidential candidate? No.

  • rennyangel2

    Too many posters across the ‘right’ band of net pubs. are willing to x out a possible candidate due to one statement or one disagreement.

    On Hot Air, another non-voter who brags about staying home during elections because the candidates are not pure enough cons. for him CANNOT COMPREHEND THAT WE NEED TO ELECT REPUBLICANS TO TAKE THE POWER AWAY FROM DEMS., and if you don’t vote, you are serving the goals of the left and are for all purposes a voting DEM.

    • Maryland_Malcontent

      Too true. It seems that more and more people have been joining the “I wanna real Conservative or I’m taking my toys and going home, ’cause that’ll send the GOP a ‘message'” movement, ignoring the fact that it has been tried for over 20 years and it hasn’t worked yet, unless “worked” is defined as “put Democrats into office”.

      Even Ted Cruz isn’t Conservative enough for some of these people.

      • rennyangel2

        Thank you. I just read a long screed on Hot Air by some idjit who won’t vote for a RINO and won’t vote if the whole Rep. Party isn’t changed to his/her liking and boasted of ‘STAYING HOME AGAIN.’ 3 million Reps. did not vote for Romney,and depending on their geog. distribution, those votes could have won the election. And if they didn’t think there was any diff. between ozero and Romney, they must have been brain dead to start,

        • Maryland_Malcontent

          There’s just no talking to those people.

          I don’t understand how they “stay home” as, if their state is anything like mine, there are all sorts of State and Local political decisions to be made on the ballots and if those guys aren’t voting for those, not voting for Conservatives on their homefront, then they’re, well, something that I’m having trouble thinking of polite terms to describe.

          In 2012, Maryland put gay marriage (and all controversial political decisions; our pols have no guts to decide themselves) on the Presidential ballot. Any Maryland republican who “stayed home” ignored those and screwed himself. Frustratingly I’ve met many alleged Republicans here in MD who claim that they didn’t go to the polls in 2012 due to Romney and they don’t seem to care that they shafted all Republican candidates and ideas on a state and local level.

          • rennyangel2

            I live in NJ where at least my county is the only one that went 100% for McCain in 2008. So, at least here, some pols. are not so bad. But South Jersey should separate from North Jersey, because it is a sump of high taxes, welfare cities, and fraud I saw in polling booths when I lived there so blatant that it makes any kind of real reform a joke.

            We also need to work to implement the National Voting Rights Act (there is one) that should give us all clean voting rolls and voter ID/

  • Sonya A. Willis

    For me it is his 2nd Amendment stance and the fact that he has ZERO gov’t management experience. We already have that now and look at how that’s turning out. He’s a great advocate for Conservatism. Someone else on Twitter suggested Surgeon General or HHS.

    • TundraThunder

      Anyone with little or no experience could actually be a great leader with the right people working for or with him/her.

      • Maryland_Malcontent

        Relying on underlings to get the job done is a recipe for disaster. Besides, isn’t one of the tenets of a great leader the ability to at least understand what it is that your underlings do? That would be difficult with no experience.

        Besides, we have already seen what happens when we have both experienced and inexperienced Presidents (Grant and obama) relying on their underlings to carry their Presidencies: disaster.

  • Octavious ONeal

    Oh you all will be so surprised at his stance on other issues, especially on social welfare

  • Bryn Watkins

    Ben Carson would make a great Secretary of Health and Human Services.

    • Maryland_Malcontent

      Why do we even have the HHS when we have the Surgeon General? Shouldn’t he and his organization be all that we need.

      Besides, with his qualifications he’s too qualified, following the obama admin example, to head HHS. 😉

      • World B. Free

        Frankly, I don’t even see why we need a surgeon general. It’s another government angency we could do without.

        • Maryland_Malcontent

          I wouldn’t be adverse to getting rid of the Surgeon General position either. The original purpose of the position has been long forgotten.

          Honestly, I don’t see why we need any more cabinet positions than Washington had. As I recall, he had 4.

      • Stryder51

        One runs medical administration and the other is the lead doctor. Same as a hospital, only on a national scale.

        • Maryland_Malcontent

          Why do we need the feds running anything of the sort? As I understand it, the Military medical “stuff” is handled separately and that’s the only medicine for which the feds can make a case for their involvement IMO.

  • Jimni27

    I really like Dana Loesch but I think she goes a little overboard sometimes. I know gun rights are her “thing” but she jumps at even the slightest talk about control. If you really think about it, it’s the same position the extreme pro- choicers take. There has to be a little give on these hot topics.

    Having said that, I think it’s a moot point. I don’t think Carson will run.

    • David Wilson

      No Jimni…..I think you’ve got a little overboard. We do not give up a right, any of our rights. Ever. I don’t think it’s really the gun “thing” as you say….I think it has to do with 1 person deciding to take another person’s rights away. Whatever right that is. Unacceptable.

  • Mackie

    Dana Loesch: “Gun rights isn’t an “issue.” It’s a freaking civil right.”

    Love ya girl–But let’s clarify this, it is actually a freaking Constitutional right” !!!!

    • World B. Free

      No, she’s correct, it is a civil right. It makes no difference whether or not someone wrote it down on a piece of paper.

      • American-By-Choice

        Um … civil rights are those privileges which are civilly advanced as a result of law.

        Constitutional Rights are those things to which one is entitled due to such being intrinsic to one’s humanity…, which are protected by a constitution.

        Human Rights are those things to which one is entitled by virtue of one’s life, (and as noted above) which the Constitution Protects, through the Bill of Rights, here in the US and are otherwise rejected by the ideological left… except where they bastardize the concepts, as a means to promote their own power.

  • cassady75

    Be practical. A President Carson with a Republican-Conservative Congress would not be able to go anywhere on the gun issue, let alone with the reaction of various State and localities that would resist such an idea. Second, although highly unlikely, a Carson versus ANY Democrat presidential race should result in a conservative vote for Carson.

  • Semprasectum

    Yep, Carson’s stand on gun RIGHTS are unacceptable. . .period.

  • Arnold Townsend

    I did not know that about Ben Carson. Maybe he can reach a middle ground on this — promise not to make it an issue in his presidency. I think that might work so long as we have a GOP in control of one or both houses of Congress. I’d like to point out to Dr. Carson that the logic he uses could be used for a number of other “rights”, as well. Maybe “freedom of speech” should be more restricted in urban areas than in less populated country areas. Perhaps religion should also be restricted in that manner — and don’t get me started about a free press. Imagine the harm a deranged press could do to people in “certain geographical areas”. Or free speech. Or religion. Maybe cities should be allowed to suspend search and seizure rules in an urban environment. In other words, your rights come to you not because they are inalienable and fundamental but only if they suit a “georgraphical” condition. I’m afraid Dr. Carson needs to study how and why these things were and are considered “rights” and how they came to be in the Bill of Rights. I still think he’s a smart man, in most respects would make a good president, but he like too many others have so little awareness of our nation’s history.

  • World B. Free

    Dana Loesch ✔ @DLoesch

    Gun rights isn’t an “issue.” It’s a freaking civil right.

    This is why Dana Loesch ROCKS. She gets it.

  • Douglas H Lang

    I am libertarian essentially! I have heard much of what dr carson has said but this is the first bit of “muddy” thinking that ive seen from him! You cannot have one law for one person and a different law for another within the same geopolitical frame work dependant of location! That’s like saying that everyone has to pay for their affordable care exept politicians in dc!………oh!………wait!

  • Kay Headley

    He’s better used as a political pundit/commentator. Let him give speeches in support of candidates.

  • capisce

    “It isn’t an “issue.” It’s a civil right.”
    The slope gets slippery fast.
    When they came for the first amendment, there wasn’t anyone ‘allowed’ to speak out against it.

  • Scott Snoopy

    over the past decade I have become a one issue voter…support of The Constitution…and will you protect rights of Americans to own firearms…no matter the good Drs other qualifications; this is a deal breaker. While there is no such thing as a “perfect” candidate, their position on this is non-negotiable..period.

  • jazj

    Simple response, get Dr Carson in charge of the Health system, he will resolve it.

  • ssaftler

    This is yet another sad comment on why we will be in BOHICA mode come January 20, 2017 when Hillary Clinton is inaugurated as President.

    If you agree with someone on 99% of their agenda, but throw him or her under the bus for that 1% you don’t like, you will never find someone “worthy” of your vote.

  • daveachicagoareajamerican

    The authors of the Second Amendment didn’t qualify, quantify, or provide exception to it. Neither should Dr. Carson.

    I agree with Ms. Loesch.

    What if a candidate said the same thing about the First Amendment?

  • Doug Serjeant

    KJV Deuteronomy chapter 17 verse 15 This is God speaking and HIS words, Thou shalt in any wise set him king/president over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king/president thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Pretty clear what our Father in Heaven say’s about this matter. Think we just might learn our lesson hmm.

  • Guest

    Some dumb ass put Rubio up there, I bet he thinks Bohner is doing a fantastic job..
    The GOP is the same GOP as in 2008 and 2012.. Betting seek shelter from this decade of downgrades and destruction by putting your trust in the Tea Party.

  • Stesta Rawks

    Some dumb ass put Rubio up there, I bet he thinks Bohner is doing a fantastic job..
    GOP is the same GOP as in 2008 and 2012.. Ya better seek shelter from
    this decade of downgrades and destruction by putting your trust in the
    Tea Party.

  • $375718

    Dana is right!

  • phungi20

    Saying that he would rather you not have a gun is nowhere near the same as saying that he supports restricting your right to have it. He is expressing a view on the wisdom of you actually having it – urging self-control is not urging the government to act against your interests.

  • Wesley Stinnett

    If Dr. Carson is for restriction of the second amendment, we don’t need him in the White House!

    • American-By-Choice

      Carson is not for restricting the second amendment, he is for precluding the protections afforded by such to people who fail to bear the intrinsic responsibilities OF SUCH.

      Which happens to also be the basis of western jurisprudence.

      • Maryland_Malcontent

        …so being a law-abiding citizen who lives in a city makes one fail to bear the “intrinsic responsibilities of such”.

        The 2nd Amendment is God-given. Man can’t “preclude” upstanding citizens from it, not unless he is a liberal (especially one who thinks of himself as being a deity, though that might be redundant).

        • American-By-Choice

          I have traveled all over this country… worked extensively in most states, including CA, MI, NY, Mass, Ct, PA and I’ve carried in every single one of them, without regard for their restrictions on my rights and, in three of them, I’ve had reason to present my firearm to those intent on causing me harm.

          While I was prepared to dispatch those individuals, I found that where their perceived advantage had evaporated, they were quite anxious, to change their mind and move on.

          In one of those I was faced with arrest and after having explained the situation the Officer on Scene decided that I should go on my way, despite being in gross violation of that state’s laws.

          I consider this to be an example of divine providence.

          You see, I did not use the power that I possessed to end the life of those who had just seconds earlier intended to do me harm… I merely presented them with the choice, to turn from their behavior and go home… or to die, immediately. To their credit, they chose wisely.

          Had they chosen poorly, they would have died and I would likely have gone to, and probably still be, in prison.

          Do you see how that works?

          Carson is NOT the problem… the problem rests in those who’ve been robbed of the education which could have provided them with the means to understand fundamental decency… along with the benefits that stem from such and the SOCIALISTS WHO STOLE IT FROM THEM!

          • Maryland_Malcontent

            Education is important but it is certainly not a near-future-achievable solution. Even with proper education there will be and always were criminals.

            Being armed is the only deterrent and Carson has frowned upon that. Being armed is a God-given right; you shouldn’t have to rely on Divine Intervention to spare you from the justified-by-law crackdown on your arms as God has already “weighed in” for all guns for all upstanding citizens.

            I subscribe to a different firearm paradigm than do you (though I agree about “civil disobedience” concerning carrying where the government has proscribed it) but I’m glad that yours has worked out for you when it needed to. I am curious as to why a cop was on the scene, that’s a stroke of bad luck (and, of course, had you been unarmed he would have been drawing that chalk outline around you or taking a report).

          • American-By-Choice

            Carson hasn’t frowned upon being armed. I completely disagree with that assessment.

            But I agree with the balance of what you’ve said.

            The would-be bad-a-ss called the police on his cell. My guess is the cop was a friend of his, but the cop never said. Once I explained what had happened, that I used the firearm purely as a means to defend my own safety, from a person clearly intent upon my injury or death… he took me out of the cruiser, removed the cuffs and told me not to worry about it, but he would be ‘keeping an eye on me’. Which was fine with me… my activities were simple… work, workout, eat, sleep, repeat.

          • Maryland_Malcontent

            Carson has frowned upon being armed. If you live in a city, he does not want you to have a certain type of firearm, that is what he has said and with a position like that he certainly isn’t smiling upon our God-given right to bear arms.

            There was nothing more to it than that: if you live in a city, you shouldn’t get certain types of firearms, so sayeth Dr. Carson.

            I don’t believe that a species of Thug that would call the police when the going gets tough for them truly exists around here. Baltimore is the birthplace of “Snitches get Stitches” and the allegedly-infamous “Stop Snitchin'” campaign.

  • journey50

    I think B Carson would be a Great Vice-President for Scott Walker, that match-up would really give the Demoratts a huge headache in 2016 & a Huge Winning Ticket for the GOP…..

  • scott allen

    like him but he needs to stay out of the gun control issue,,,,its a constitutional right ,,,,,if he jacks with it what else is he gonna jack with in the constitution….like him as surgeon general

  • Kyright

    Absolutely right Dana. However, the way the appointees are given so much authority, I fear he could start an anti-gun campaign as the Surgeon General.

  • mjury

    This is not a deal killer yet. Carson has not announced he is going to run. He has been caught in a common mistake committed by politicians all the time. He was caught discussing an idea he has not fully thought out. On its face, the idea about geographical gun control is good, but further thought leads to the conclusion that it limits a constitutionally enumerated right we just cannot limit. It is when he finally gives his views as a candidate that we should judge him. He is a good one, for sure!

  • JpRAustin

    Totally agree w/ Dana & Eric Johnson

  • hangman57

    For me our Constitution is our Supreme law , If a politician wants to change the Bill of Rights and change our protected Amendments ,I can’t support Dr. Carson . I can support anyone who wants to restrict my gun rights . My rights come from God ,not man !

  • Paul C.

    Like Obama he can evolve………………sac.

  • ImTheNana

    I’d rather see Carson as Surgeon General.

  • kurt blanchard

    He just indicated that he didn’t like a crazy person with a machine gun in a crowd. Who WOULD like that scenario. He never said anything about how he would deal with the issue. Restricting gun ownership from crazy people is a good idea. Guns don’t kill anyone, people do.

    • Duddioman

      No, he said if you live in an urban area, he would like for you to not have an “assault” rifle. But that if you lived in the country, that was fine with him. I don’t remember crazy coming up in the conversation.

      • Roger Chaplin

        Yeah, if you read the statement above that he made to Glenn Beck, he’s saying that your right to own a certain kind of weapon should be based on the density of the crazy person population in the place where you live.

  • reggiemay

    Soft on illegal immigration. Not until every citizen that wants a job has one.

  • Colleen Wallace

    I love Dr. Carson, I have read a few of his books. While I think he or anyone else for that matter would be a better president than the one we have, I still have to ask what qualifications he has to run for president. I agree with the guy who said he would make a fine surgeon general or take over HHS. He is an outstanding human being who overcame living in poverty to a single mother who could barely read to become a world renowned brain surgeon. He is inspirational and I wish more people could learn from his story and quit blaming their circumstances for everything such as this latest study that racism causes obesity in black women. Excuses excuses!

  • Larry Mellette

    Rand Pres. Carson VP.

  • barakiri1993

    I wouldn’t vote for him in the primaies because of his Second Amendment views. He was a dem for a long time, from my limited understanding, and that makes me nervous. However, if he gets the nomination, I’ll campaign for him!

    I have a lot of respect for Dr Carson. He’s an incredible person with strength and dignity. He isn’t afraid to speak up to anyone regarding his beliefs. I like that. I like what he says he’d do. But I’m pretty gunshy about anyone for president after the things I’ve seen in my relatively short life.

    The first thing I remember politically is Obama. He’s a tyrant and actually has an agenda to destroy us! I was a young teenager with Bush, so I didn’t pay much attention. Now that I’m an adult, I’m involved and I’m scared. So I think that my apprehension is justified.

  • amandaleane

    Let’s not forget Carsen is also PRO-immigration! Therefore his beliefs on guns and immigration knock him totally out of the running for the Oval.

  • Pat

    I’m with you, Dana!!! This is what a primary is for. We need to weed out the people who are not presidential material. We can’t afford to get it wrong this time!! Let’s not do McCain/Romney redux!!!

  • jabbermule

    Dana Loesch is an idiot. The reason we have Barack Obama for TWO TERMS is because of “conservatives” like her.

    • alanstorm

      Care to elaborate? Do you have any justification for your bizarre statement?

      Are you trying to say that, given the choice between Dr. Carson and Obama, she would have sat out the last elections, or voted for Obama?

      Keep in mind where we are in the electoral cycle, and it will help keep you from blurting out used food.

      • Justwaitinforchange

        People were told that Romney wasn’t conservative enough and many of those individuals didn’t vote. Pretty simple.

        • American-By-Choice

          Who told them that Romney wasn’t Conservative enough?

          Here’s a clue… that would be the same people that told them that Romney was the only possible choice for a win.

    • Stryder51

      No, the reason we have Obama for two terms is because of the idiots who sat home in protest rather than voting for a man who, as it turns out, would have been a far better President.

      • American-By-Choice

        I hear about these people… never met any of ’em.

        The reason we have Obama in this extended hell, is the tens of thousands who conspired to commit election fraud and to abuse the power of the executive branch and the media, which undermined the means of Americans to organize in opposition to Obama.

      • jabbermule

        Well, that’s pretty much what I was saying.

  • Ruth

    I agree with Dana about jumping on the President bandwagon so quickly. Anytime a conservative (or Republican) seems to be the star of the moment people immediately start touting him for president. Why, I remember “Scott Brown for President”! Please.

    • American-By-Choice

      Carson would make an excellent President. He is a brilliant man, who has excellent leadership skills. And what’s more, he’s honest, with a keen understanding of the natural principles in play.

      There is no better set of skills to have in a Chief Executive.

      • Ruth

        I never said he wouldn’t. Some are just too quick to shout “_____ for President” before investigating further.

        • American-By-Choice

          Ruth, I do not disagree…

          FTR: There’s no chance that Doc Carson will be anointed President on the ascent of folks like me who see the brilliance.

          I say vet him, at LEAST as much as the current President was vetted. Which would preclude Doc Carson from having to show so much as a driver’s license.

          Of course, we already know more about Carson, who, as many have noted has never held public office… and who has a litany of world class, PROFOUND accomplishments within his record.

          We know who his mother is, who his brother is… where he was born, the schools he attended, the grades he made, what his teachers said about him.

          We know that he is a man who has seriously considered the RESPONSIBILITY which comes with the OPENING OF THE SKULL OF A MOTHER’S CHILD… OPERATING ON THAT CHILD’S BRAIN and consequentially, as a result of his consideration… IMPROVED the life of the MOTHER AND CHILD.

          Of course, he hasn’t a lot of experience in agitating the intellectually less fortunate, speaking to them through pitiful flourish, long on promise and void of consequences in kinship with the promises.

          But I don’t see that as a deficit…

          • mike_in_kosovo

            “We know……”

            …and we know that he supports limitations on the 2nd, not due to actions by the owner, but by where the owner may live.

  • Jean Henri Laprime

    Thank you Dana, for expressing my exact reservations over a Carson run for POTUS. While I have a great deal of rEspect for the good Doctor, one must look at all his views. I see him fitting comfortably into a cabinet position where his expertise would help the country to recover from the Obama Malaise. After that, we’ll see.

  • Prospector

    Fortunately, POTUS doesn’t have the authority to restrict the 2nd Amendment.

    • plumberskid

      And the good news being that Dr. Carson is not the type of American who would consider violating the constitution to push an agenda.

  • American-By-Choice

    Loesch has a point. But I think that she hasn’t thought this through.

    The places and people of whom Doc Carson speaks, are socialist population centers… Socialism, based in Relativism, already rejects the objectivity which discerned human rights, which, as a result, precludes any means to discern the responsibility that sustain those rights.

    In point of fact, where people are not bearing the responsibilities that sustain their rights, they’ve already forfeited those rights.

    So Doc Carson is absolutely right. People who do not understand what rights are, from where they come and on what they are based… are incapable of sustaining them.

    In short, Liberalism is incapable of bearing the responsibilities inherent in the second amendment, thus liberalism and the liberals who adhere to such, forfeit the right which the 2nd amendment protects.

    This has no bearing on the right, those who understand recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principle, or the constitution which protects the means of THOSE citizens to exercise such.

    While the right protected in the US Constitution are for all human beings, such rights will only be sustained by individuals who recognize, respect, defend and adhere TO the natural principles which define those rights and THOSE PRINCIPLES are the same principles that DEFINE AMERICA… thus, those rights are only relevant TO: Americans.

    And folks, let’s face it… where you see people stating that the Constitution is an instrument of an agrarian society from a long ago lost time, THOSE PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION… but in fact they’re speaking of THEMSELVES who are a people that are unsuited for the freedom provided by a republican constitution.

    Which again, has NOTHING to do with Americans.

  • lazypadawan

    The biggest advantage Dr. Carson would have is that he’s not a politician. The biggest disadvantage Dr. Carson would have is that he’s not a politician.

    • American-By-Choice

      It’s purely an advantage… to Carson.

      Unlike the current occupant of the White House, becoming President would be a SACRIFICE for Carson.

      • Maryland_Malcontent

        Being pres is a sacrifice for obama: all these pesky press conferences that he has to make are keeping him off the golf courses and his political friends are distancing themselves from him due to ocare. Life was easier for him when he was a senator who only had to vote present and rage against Dubya in between golf sessions.

  • nelly2004

    I agree with Dand on that and people should find out about his immigration stance also, which is not what a lot of people would think. He also wrote in his book that he thinks money should be electronic only – not practical at all.
    Cruz/Paul or Paul/Cruz would be best for restoring the Republic in my opinion. I like Cruz first because he bucks the establishment which at this time in history is more important than compromise. We need less laws not more, legislating is overrated in that it used to be said ignorance of the law is no excuse- that was when laws were common sense, moral and few- now there are so many, politicians promote more to support ones that are not being respected or enforced which is ridiculous. (Ex restore religious liberty act- give me a break – judges must uphold the law and be held accountable)

  • Stevan Fagan

    civil right? constitutional right ! and it depends on who he is running against. the lesser of two evils is always a vote stopper , most will not show up to vote because of just one issue pounded out by an idiot like roesch, stop the pick and choose , you will never find a all in one you agree with.

  • Travis

    We certainly aren’t going to find a “purist” who is going to be all things to all people. I “Stand with Rand” but don’t care much for his leanings on marijuana. I love Marco, but his solutions to illegal immigration aren’t my favorite. Ted Cruz is awesome too… I don’t expect to find the “perfect” candidate, but I will certainly vote for the man or woman who is the alternative to big government intrusion, socialist healthcare, the abortion culture, and weak foreign policy.

  • disqus_snI1XGF3Qq

    Cherry picking issues leads to a very small tent !

    • J August

      I agree with Loesch; civil rights are not “issues”.

      • disqus_snI1XGF3Qq

        Well excuse me for not using a word that suits your taste, but if the voters in the Republican party don’t set aside some of their differences long enough to dislodge the Democrats from power, we will be arguing for many years to come on what constitutes a worthy candidate.( with no favorable results) That is my very humble opinion ‘J’

        • Max

          I don’t set aside my civil rights and any one suggesting I should can…

          • disqus_snI1XGF3Qq

            Holy crap, I’m not suggesting you (set aside) your rights. I own several firearms myself, big 2nd amendment supporter, Marine combat veteran who fought to preserve freedoms. But somebody better figure out a F***ing way to get these bastards out of power or this dust up becomes moot.

        • TLTII

          Maybe it is time democrats start to set aside their lust for power and control so we can get along with them better?

          • disqus_snI1XGF3Qq

            Let’s not hold our breaths on that one Terry.

        • J August

          Weeeellll excuuuuuse meeeeeee for disagreeing with you. 😉

          • disqus_snI1XGF3Qq

            You’re excused !

  • Matthew Halsey

    Dr. Ben Carson has been one of my heroes since I was 10 or 11, being one of the inspirations for my desire to become a physician. (I fell short of that goal and became a paramedic.) But I cannot support him for president due to his desire to implant RFID chips in every person. He wrote of this in one of his books. Were this idea carried out, liberty would truly be lost.

  • Arkuy The Great

    Carson may be a smart man and a gifted speaker. However, haven’t we had enough of a smart man (allegedly) and gifted speaker since 2009? Let Carson gain some good executive experience in political organizations (mayor, county exec, governor, e.g.) and then come back. Or he could serve as an excellent Congressman or Senator. There are plenty of places where his talents could be better employed.

  • OneWomanWolfPack

    Dana is right. However, he would make a wonderful Surgeon General..

    • American-By-Choice

      Dana is no correct… Her heart is in the right place, but she hasn’t thought it through.

  • jdog777

    Call it what you will… a litmus test or an “issue”. The man is dead wrong… AND unproven. This would be like the conservative’s attempt to elect a Barack Obama. It is impossible to predict what you will get. Rand Paul or Ted Cruz… take your pick. These men are on the record with where they stand and are proven in the thick of it. Carson needs to “evolve” on issues of freedom before you hand him the title “Most powerful man in the free world”.

  • el_polacko

    when the subject is dana’s opinion, why the heck is hers the 7th tweet quoted ?? it’s weird to read reactions before knowing what they are reacting to. who is running twitchy ? yoda ?

    • tedlv

      Your handle is appropriate.

  • tedlv

    I don’t know who Dana is, but I definitely agree with her. Maybe she should run! Another point, why are so many conservative women drop dead beautiful like Dana, and libs look like Pelosi and Clinton?

    • American-By-Choice

      eww… That’s just nasty.

  • Leonard

    I am shocked that Dana is being as dishonestly selective as liberals. The sentence before the quote she used was, “We have the second amendment for a reason, people have the right to own weapons.” The statement about local decisions on gun types IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE LIVING WITH NOW! I would ask Dana, how are people with political experience working out for us so far? Carson is an executive administrator that ran the Johns Hopkins children’s hospital, which gives him more executive experience than most in Government now,, by far. This type of puritanical nit-picking over candidates is why 10 million Republicans stayed home in 2012 instead of voting for Romney. Dana Loesch has lost my respect over her deceit.

    • tedlv

      It would appear that “local decisions on gun control” isn’t what she considers to be consistent with the second amendment. I agree with her.

      • Leonard

        During the first part of his response to Beck–Carson said, “We have the second amendment for a reason, people have the right to own weapons.” This puritanical over-reaction to any slight disagreement by Conservatives is why 10 million stayed home and didn’t vote for Romney.. Go ahead and cut off your nose to spite your face, then end up with 10 times worse than the candidate you condemned.

        • American-By-Choice


        • TLTII

          No, it was a milk toast moderate candidate that caused conservatives to go home.

          • Leonard

            How intelligent… If you stayed home don’t complain about Obama because that is who you voted for… As I said, cut off you nose to spite your face but don’t complain when toxic righteousness gets you someone 10 times worse!

          • TLTII

            I did vote, but many did not. Maybe the GOP needs to learn that the base does not want a damned moderate which is in essence democrat lite. If you want that why not vote democrat classic

          • Leonard

            and how is that working out for us? “The Base” get to be righteous and the country gets to be screwed by Marxists because “the base” won’t accept anyone that is not a moderate. A special kind of stupid. The liberals run circles around conservatives politically, we could never defeat them with such petty toxic righteousness!

          • TLTII

            Maybe you havent seen any of my other posts, but since Reagan we have had GHB, Dole, GWB, McCain, Romney. ALL of them, are “moderate” with the exception that GW campaigned the first time as “conservative”(however governed center left with massive deficit spending, and another entitlement, along with a HUGE obnoxious bureaucracy in Homeland Security, which is every bit as political as the IRS). The question you should be asking is where have the moderates taken us? You self righteous moderates that claim “vote for me or take a dem” are not doing anyone any favors. John Boenher with his amnesty is actively working to end the GOP forever. Then you will not even have a moderate to vote for. Tell me which democrat policies we can compromise on and not have abject socialism come from it?
            If your complaint is “you didnt vote, its your fault” then shove it pal..I DID vote, and I felt dirty every d*mned time. So take your “purity” extremist insult to huff post. I appreciate integrity and wont have it insulted. I can not blame people for not voting for the “choice” of the slow road to hell in a GOP candidate or the fast track in a dem.

          • Leonard

            There you go, more toxic righteousness. The type of mentality you just displayed says it all and explains why we have a Marxist in the WH. I don’t agree with you 100 percent so you personally attack me, it feels like talking to a liberal. You as a conservative may have common sense, but like too many conservatives, you have no concept of political strategy or tactics…. and that is where we are being defeated!

          • TLTII

            No it is YOU who is personally attacking me for something I did not do, “How intelligent… If you stayed home don’t complain about Obama because that is who you voted for”…You did not say they or them, you said “you” as if I have control over peoples votes.
            It is also YOU who are attacking them for withholding their vote, which they have every right to do when the GOP puts bad people up for the vote.
            I know first hand there are slimey “moderates” in office who know full well that many good conservatives MUST vote for them or be punished with a democrat. The perfect form of blackmail, vote for me and the small poison I offer or take the whole bottle with the dem.
            The conservative vote is taken for granted by people who pander to conservatives then stab them in the back. They can pussyfoot around with “tactics” like Boehner if they wish. I understand political tactics, and it smacks of cowardice to me. You use tactics when you dont have confidence in your own ideology. People want integrity, clarity of purpose, and honor in their leaders, and they want those leaders to defend our tenuous liberty. We have NONE of that from either party. That is what will energize the base..not behind the scenes tactics.

            “I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” – when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

            Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”

            You know who said the last two paragraphs? That is not a tactic..that is leadership

          • Leonard

            First of all, I did not personally attack you. The “you” was a rhetorical you, not personal. If you felt I was personally attacking you, I may should have been more clear. I apologize. Second, how is not voting for “moderates” working out for us? Default to something 10 times worse over a righteous stance,, yes.. HOW INTELLIGENT!!

          • TLTII

            Well I disagree. Not voting for a bad candidate is the only way voters have of telling the party they need better quality candidates. I did place my vote, and I would do it again, but I felt bad every time.

          • Leonard

            I don’t disagree with that point.. However, last election it was a life or death decision for this country. Conservatives needed to swallow their righteousness and votes for a man that is 1000 percent better for the USA than Obama. Picking your battles is a sign of wisdom. Reckless righteousness tends to bring on far more problems than the comparatively trivial matter that the righteous stance is being taken for. Peace.

          • TLTII

            Oh yes, last election was the first time I have ever voted out of fear

          • mike_in_kosovo

            And what we got due to that was SO much better than them holding their nose and voting, even it wasn’t for candidate Dreamy McDreamerson….wasn’t it?

          • TLTII

            I am not arguing with you guys, Im just saying that is what I think happened. I held my nose when I voted for H Bush, Dole, W (the second time, the first he looked more conservative), McCain, and Romney.
            Look at our candidates since Reagan. NONE of them are good conservatives. The ones (H and W) we got elected sounded conservative, but turned out not to be. I think the GOP can do better than milk toast center left candidates. Voting for the lesser of two evils is not working, and people are voting with their hearts. The country has lurched so far left now that it is going to take even the perfect candidate crawling over 10 miles of broken glass just to START restoring true liberty. The problem is the GOP thinks it needs more left wing candidates to compete, and that is where they are going to.
            Stop blaming the voters, they are simply giving the GOP the message, it is the GOP that needs to pull their head out of their collective a sses.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            I don’t disagree with your point, either…just pointing out that refusing to vote because they’re not the ‘perfect candidate’ doesn’t help anything except the person’s ego.

          • TLTII

            I tend to disagree with your sentiment, because that is supposed to weed out weak candidates. I think both parties electoral systems are becoming increasingly corrupt, that is why we are getting weak people winning the primaries. Since Dems have no shame it is helpful to them.
            The caveat to my point is…I would rather have elected a garden slug to the low life we have as president now

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Weak candidates *should* be weeded out…but in the primaries, not the general election.

            Fully agree with the ‘garden slug’ comment…although I think we need to apologize to garden slugs for the comparison.

  • 24601

    The second amendment is quite clear. “…the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.”

    That said, I don’t hold statements against candidates for all eternity. People can change their minds. If they couldn’t, Ronald Reagan would not have become the best president in decades, arguably the best in the entire 20th century.

    • American-By-Choice

      Well said, Carson is no where close to the position which is being painted of him, here…

  • Groty1

    Don’t forget that it was Democrats who killed last year what ultimately turned out to be a watered down version of gun control in the Senate. However, it’s unknown and unknowable what Congress will look like AFTER the ’16 elections in which a hypothetical President Carson would be sworn in. So for that reason it’s probably better not to nominate him.

  • smiley

    Everyone can be an armchair commentator, but not a single person so far deserves to be president. People won’t come to rational decision the our country is screwed. The great experiment has failed. Over 50% of the populous is getting some kind of a handout and not any conservative presidential candidate can overcome this 50% obstacle. Time to deal with it, the republic will fail.

    • American-By-Choice

      While I understand your point, I disagree with your conclusion.

      The great experiment is a profound success, it has demonstrated what the founders said it would:

      Striving to meet the better nature required of high principle results in success and happiness, wealth and prosperity.

      Succumbing to one’s base instincts, rejecting the discipline required by high principle, results in socialism… which results in chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

    • 4liberty

      I total disagree. I hope that most people want to and would be productive ie. hold a job and support our economy as opposed to dragging it down, if they could. I honestly believe that if there were jobs, people would rather work than not work. We need to offer a candidate who will do all he can to strengthen our economy by catering to the job creators and making changes to spur our economy on not do 0bamanomics and tax everything out of existence even while knowing no amount of money will be enough for his foolish ideals. Creating an atmosphere for job creation has to be priority one. If people make money, people spend money and that isn’t happening now.

  • CommonSense4America

    I have been saying this ever since I heard Dr. Carsons’ stance on the 2nd amendment. In his commentary, he compared a drivers license to licensing or permitting a weapon. Well, here are the facts. A RIGHT is not a privilege. Driving a vehicle is a privilege. While I agree that we don’t have to agree with everything a candidate says, RIGHTS are not negotiable. Other than that, I like him but will not vote for him or anyone else that believes like this.

    • American-By-Choice

      Rights are not negotiable… That’s true.

      Carson being President doesn’t, therefore, initiate a negotiation.

      If the US Congress passed a law today that made felons of every US Citizen who owned a firearm, that would not alter my ownership of firearms, in ANY WAY.

      It would only shorten my remaining time on this planet, when the law was signed and there existed on my door a stack of boys who would be leaving this earth, immediately ahead of me.

      I’d leave with my rights FULLY IN TACT…

      And at some point, they’d figure it out, when they ran out of cops willing to stack up to take the guns of those well capable of choosing the right guns and well versed in the use of same.

      Now, with that said… THAT WOULD BE INJUSTICE and Doc Carson is NOT interested in such, well understands the principles that sustain justice and I believe is a person dedicated to the service of such principle.

      So enough of this nonsense. Carson isn’t a threat of ANY KIND to the 2nd amendment. The suggestion that he is, is DELUSIONAL!

  • 4liberty

    How long have 0bama and the democrats fought HARD for gun control? Has it happened? The president isn’t a king. Any amendments to the constitution have to go through congress. Everyone should know by now that isn’t likely to happen. If you are going to condemn a man because you don’t like one of his ideas, we will never have a candidate who will win. At least not a conservative. I love DL but this crap of not compromising on any thing at all is not a winner. There are things about all the prospective candidates that I don’t agree with but when push comes to shove, we have to decide on someone and personally I think Ben Carson is one of the people at or near the top. I read about Scott Walker and how people think he would be good. Im not saying he isn’t a viable candidate but by the same token, as a Wisconsinite, Ive seen him make some decisions that I don’t agree with but as a governor, I think He is doing a good job overall. So before you count out a really good conservative, you should look at the positives and consider them before you pounce on him for something he said once that you might not agree with.

  • Jeffrey Rutter

    The right to keep and bear arms is foundational to humanity. It existed prior to the Constitution, prior to the concept of government, and prior to the very acquisition of speech. Without this right, you are a slave to anyone bigger and stronger. It used to be a truism that God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal.

  • nordicman

    Conservatives only want Carson because they’re terrified of being called racists. Conservatives need ‘black conservatives’ to say things they’re too afraid to say, even if these black conservatives hate whites secretly, are friends with Louis Farrakhan (like Colin Powell), are the head the RNC and constantly insult white republicans (like Michael Steele), are advocating the Tea Party give scholarships ONLY to nonwhites like the black conservative of

    There’s white conservative men with a backbone and who will stand up to political correctness–Ted Nugent, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump–but you won’t elect them. No, they will alienate the 95% of blacks and Mexicans and other nonwhites who will always vote against your party. You’d rather lose alienating your conservative white base than win by appealing your white conservative base.

    • 4liberty

      So you think Ted Nugent would be a better president than Ben Carson? Donald Trump? Really!! You cant be serious. If you think people like Ben Carson just because he is black, you really need to start listening to what he is saying!! You are blaming others for being racists because they think his message is strong? TED FOR PRESIDENT!! yeah right!!

  • right_on

    Amen, Dana!

  • Evie1949

    Funny how politicians should not be defined by a single issue but Texans are supposed to “Stand with Wendy” for abortion rights. Carson’s stance on 2nd amendment comes from seeing too many children in hospitals with gunshot wounds. I understand his point but, he’s conservative enough that he might not push too hard on that one issue. He’d even be a good VP candidate rather than the presidential candidate. The liberals have already started their campaign of tolerance and civility on him with their immediate reaction of name-calling – just like they did with Condi Rice. I guess this is because he wandered off the liberal plantation.

  • Bob

    I agree with Dana. The right to arms are civil rights, pre-existing the Constitution. Carson needs to bone up on the subject. Surgeon General? Yes. President? No. Besides, we need someone who has executive experience as well as conservative principles and values. We are seeing what you get when you elect a president based upon his ability to move people by giving speeches. After five years of Obama’s diarrhea of the mouth I just want to scream.

  • Dee Dunbar

    I soooooooooooooooo agree!

  • YERMOM182

    Dana speaks Truth here.

    • American-By-Choice

      No… Dana does not. Dana’s position is foolish, at best.

      Carson is being misrepresented and I believe, intentionally so.

      • BenInNY

        I watched the interview where he was asked about gun control – it’s not a misrepresentation at all – he seems great on most other things though.

        • American-By-Choice

          So did I and his answer was reasonable within the context of the question.

          Carson is talking about population centers, which have long since been operated by the Left and as a result the citizens in those areas LONG AGO RINSED of ANY SENSE of the fact that rights are sustained by responsibility.

          He was speaking to the problem of gang violence and how to control such.

          And there is no answer to that, which is going to satisfy anyone.

          Because the only answer to that, is that socialism breeds poor citizens and as long as socialism is an accepted form of reasoning in the US, we’re going to suffer the consequences of socialism.

          Now you and I might have preferred he had said that… but had he done so, he’d be media crap right now and buried under a Senate hearing questioning his sanity.

          I’ll tell you this… I do not believe that a socialist is rightfully entitled to own a firearm. I believe and I can successfully argue that those who adhere to the addled species of reasoning that is Left-think, forfeit their rights by rejecting the responsibilities that sustain those rights.

          Now in my mind that position is immutable fact. And in 54 years I’ve neither heard, nor read anything that remotely contests that fact.

          But I’ve also not read anyone else write it and I don’t hold much hope that I will.

          So I sure as hell don’t require those that I vote for as President of the US, be rock-ribber adherents to such.

          And this despite, that if one came along, most of the problems that have all but destroyed this nation, would evaporate over night.

  • Bruce Good

    Like Dr. Carson a LOT, but totally agree with Dana. If he would say he would not try to limit any fundamental Constitutional liberty, I’d love to see him as prez.

  • H50 ✓RAT

    Dana has a point. Ive noticed that repubs/conservs are quick to fall in love with the potential candidate of the day before they really understand the persons positions on critical issues. Rather foolish IMHO.
    While I like Carson for a lot of reasons, I also disagree with him on others. Not having any experience in political office is a no-go for me as well. An untested candidate is not the way to go IMHO.
    I would love to see him in a cabinet position sorting out the pitfalls of Obamacare tho.

    • American-By-Choice

      Yes, its natural that people who have long been without a leader who articulates sound reasoning, let alone one that articulates sound reasoning while expressing: THEIR OWN VALUES.

      First President I voted for was Ron Reagan. Choices have been MISERABLE SINCE. But that’s never stopped me from looking for another easy choice like first one… which produced such wonderful results.

      • H50 ✓RAT

        Personally, Id rather have a good choice, than an easy one. But hey, what ever works for you.

        • American-By-Choice

          Friend, in the American perspective, as it relates to Presidential Candidates, a good choice IS an easy one.

          • H50 ✓RAT

            True that.
            Had a hard time understanding your post. Thought you were saying that popular was better or something.
            Thanks for clarifying.

          • American-By-Choice

            Oh Lord no… Thanks for standing up for reason.

      • Cory

        Reagan wasn’t good in fiscal policy. He raised the deficit unnecessarily. Ross Perot was a good choice.

  • kssturgis62

    I agree with Dana, then she should also be against Illegals getting Amnesty and anyone who supports that nonsense.

    By the Way Read Dr. Ben Carson’s book, he also supports aspects of OBAMACARE

    • American-By-Choice

      What aspects are those?

      People get sick and should have access to medical care?
      Patients should get treatment?
      Doctors should treat patients?

      It’s pretty difficult to have a discussion on medical care and not have those finer points be present, even where the policy at issue is UTTER NONSENSE that can ONLY result in catastrophe.

      • kssturgis62

        If you are an AMERICAN by choice, than you should know everything you listed NO ONE CAN BE DENIED by Law.

        Every American gets access to medical care and gets treated.

        Every American Gets Treated.

        All Doctors under the Law must Treat Patients.

        No Person can be turned away from a hospital or denied care in the USA because they do not have the ability to pay or because they do not have insurance.

        If you knew how to use your brain and weren’t so completely brainwashed you would have known that.

        NO Ben Carson agrees with the premise that Americans should be forced to buy insurance. that is one aspect. Get an education.

        • American-By-Choice

          That’s what I thought, your argument is vacuous and intentionally misleading, and I believe intentionally deceiving.

          Buying health insurance and even mandating that citizens must buy such, is not a bad idea.

          The simple fact is that the buying of health insurance, has provided the finest healthcare system in the history of humanity.

          Where such becomes a bad idea, is where one’s policy is specifically and inalterably designed to destroy the insurance industry, which has been the policy of the Ideological Left for more than a century.

          In contrast to the socialist plan, Carson’s approach is one which uses the principles that sustain that industry, to provide a viable means to fund healthcare for every citizen of the United States, or the largest percentage of such, which is possible. The healthcare for the balance will have to be funded by the charity of the people of the United States.

          • kssturgis62

            So then YOU ARE FOR OBAMACARE. YOU think Obamacare is a Great Idea.

            Your an American By Choice?????

          • American-By-Choice

            So you feel that “ObamaCare” is defined simply by the requirement that people buy health-insurance?

            Not the designation of who can sell health-insurance and where or the nature of specific ‘policy’ composition…

            You are, which if I were to convey that thru a contraction, it would be spelled: you’re … an ignorant buffoon.

            That ObamaCare mandates the purchase of health insurance is a problem. But not JUST because the law mandates the purchase of such, it mandate the composition of the policy, forcing people to pay for coverage which is inappropriate for their circumstances. It forces insurers to cover those who present a 100% certainty for losses to the pool, it limits where a carrier can market their products, it limits the products they can market and in short it is a formula to destroy the insurance industry.

            So, no, I’m not a fan of ObamaCare. Neither am I a fan of Obama and, I am decidedly not a fan of ignorant buffoons who feel that they’ve some understanding of the issue, but who know virtually nothing about the respective subjects relevant to the issue… let alone how they effect the issue.

            The problem with US Healthcare is simply that the US Culture is infected by Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

            Those ideas reject the objectivity, which is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

            Specifically US citizens who use HealthCare Services, by in large PAY for those services through Health Insurance.

            As a result they are disconnected from the COST of those services.

            Where a user of a service is disconnected from the cost of a service, there is no pressure on the provider of those services to discipline themselves on the fees which they charge and this is NEVER >MORE TRUE< than where those escalating fees are CONSISTENTLY PAID, by the third party.

            Those seeking a solutions to this problem are further frustrated by the reaction of the service user, when the third party PAYER TRIES TO CHECK THE COSTS, by BLAMING THE PAYER, who if you're keeping score… IS THE INSURER…

            The solution is very simple. Take the third party payer OUT of the HealthCare System.

            Meaning that if the service user was fully responsible for the bill and had to write a check for the service, they would through the natural process of economics, set pressures upon the providers of such to check the fees they charge. They would look around to see who charges what, to find if there exist an equally competent provider who is charging less. Just as they do for EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF SERVICES AND PRODUCTS THEY USE.

            Naturally, the Ideological Left is working toward the precisely opposite 'solution', which will render the individual wholly incapable of having ANY CHOICES in their health care.

            And as just an FYI: I'm against that.

  • confed2001

    It appears to me that this Carson is nothing but another
    RINO! I am so sick of having the lesser of 2 evils to vote for! Evil lesser or
    great is still evil!

    • American-By-Choice


  • teddy6139


  • Combaticron

    I wouldn’t want to see him as Surgeon General either, sadly. Or in any position where his opinion on 2A might matter.

    • American-By-Choice

      LOL! That’s just sad…

  • Bob509

    I want to know one thing and I don’t see anyone asking this question ,and that is… If you get elected, will your first act as president be to arrest Whoinsane Obama and charge him with treason, perjury, crimes against the American people, embezzlement , murder , aiding and abetting the enemy and putting known enemies of the people in high offices overseeing American national interest… if the next person to be President will not answer this question… don’t talk to me……..

    • American-By-Choice

      Don’t get your hopes up.

      I am still reeling from not seeing GW turn from his having just taken the oath of office, toward the Clintons seated behind him and command: “SEIZE THEM!”.

      Had he done so, subjected them to a little rendition he came up with later one, we would not have suffered the losses common to 9-11 and the subsequent decade-long world war that followed.

      • Bob509

        I agree… these criminals get power and rape the country and after they get out just walk away and leave everything in shambles… as for Bush he only slowed the pilfering down a little and like you said never called the Rapist in Chief … Clinton … to account for all he did to damage this once great country

        • Cory

          Bush passed TARP 1. He was just like the rest of them. At least Clinton had a balanced budget.

          • American-By-Choice

            Bush didn’t pass a damn thing. He signed it… Which he shouldn’t have, but he also signed the largest entitlement programs since LBJ.

            GW was a horribly flawed president. He just appears to be close to perfect from our new sub-surface perspective, having had coming up on six years of the Clinton re dux.

            With regard to the balanced budget Clinton signed, he was drug to that KICKING AND SCREAMING! The Best thing that ever happened to Clinton, before Obama, was Newt Gingrich.

          • Cory

            Clinton signed Welfare reform and a balanced budget into law. That’s a lot better than what Bush or Obama has done. What did bush do better than Clinton?

          • H50 ✓RAT

            Clinton was pretty much forced into it by a republican congress.
            Congress does the budget, the POTUS just signs it.

          • Cory

            I agree. How come the GOP congress didn’t demand the same from Bush?

          • H50 ✓RAT

            The big push was for welfare reform. That was supposed to be the thing that balanced the budget from then on, didnt happen and now that has all been undone anyway by Obama.
            The next big push was supposed to be for tax reform, but that didnt happen either, not quite sure why, it should have. Seems like 9-11 and Medicare expansion got in the way. Then of course the republicans lost control of Congress and the housing bubble collapsed. Bush was really a progressive or ‘compassionate’ republican who liked spending and the RINOs and Dems were happy to support his spending.
            Not a fan of Bush’s government expansion or big spending. When it came to fiscal policies, he was really weak and often wrong IMO.

          • Cory

            Which I’m glad Obama did. The states should reform welfare not the federal government. All I’m saying what’s the purpose of electing GOP when they do the same as Dems. It’s time for a different party.

          • H50 ✓RAT

            Thats what the TEA Party was all about. It was in direct opposition to Bush’s fiscal policies and the Patriot Act. Sick of the RINOS, they are just Dem lite. Id like to see a true conservative run. Im getting to the point where Im leaning more libertarian because it seems to be the best fit on the majority of issues as long as the RINOs control the Republican Party. Time will tell.

            Im not glad that Obama undid welfare reform because it ties the States hands and has contributed to ballooning the debt.
            Two areas that needed reform without a doubt were Welfare reform and Tax reform. Now we have neither.
            In short, were screwed.

          • Cory

            Your state can reform welfare, Ohio and Texas have been doing it and that’s why their budgets have been in the black. If your state isn’t reforming welfare, blame your state gov. In terms of being more libertarian, I knew more people would start coming to our side because it’s the most sensible solution to the country’s problems. All government is needed for is protection. All others can be sorted out by the people.

          • H50 ✓RAT

            Yes and no on the state level reforms. I do agree that the Feds have no business being in the Welfare business.

            Our state is a total entitlement culture and a lost cause. The sad part is that 15 years ago or so, we did initiate some limited reforms (in conjunction with the Federal reforms), coupled with education and job training programs. It was a huge success. Median income went up, folks got better jobs and teenage and young adult pregnancy dropped. Thats pretty much all reversed now here. It really is a shame.

            You have a good point about folks defecting to the libertarian platform tho. Folks want clear choices, contrast and plain talk. If the GOP stays stuck in their establishment rut, they will go the way of the Whigs IMO.

          • Bob509

            thanks to a Republican Congress… The Rapist in Chief refused to sign it into law I think 3 times…

          • Bob509

            thanks to a Republican Congress and it really wasn’t a Balanced budget it was a PROJECTED balanced budget…

          • Cory

            Bush had a GOP congress as well and he never signed a balanced budget into law. I remember Dick Cheney saying “deficits don’t matter” yet the GOP sellouts reelected them.

          • American-By-Choice

            You’re speaking of the budgets during the Word War Bush was waging against Islamic Terrorism, which averaged 150 billion annually?

            And the comment Cheney made, which was in context to deficits of 150 billion -vs- the catastrophe wherein US Citizens didn’t leave their houses for fear of being evaporated by idiots with bomb-vests?

            Is this your way of adhering to the principle that ‘the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are greater than the odds of hitting the lotto… (in which 150 million Americans play every week)?

          • Cory

            In regards to your earlier edit. I don’t care if was drug by his neck, he signed it. Bush and Cheney increased our deficits for false wars. They should’ve been primaried in 2004.

          • American-By-Choice

            Ladies and Gents, I present you: THE PROBLEM!

            Wars cost money sis… But I agree, they should have shut down the welfare spicket, shut down the EPA and of course all funding for PBS and other such counter productive programs.

            But, the worlds not a perfect place.

            And I want to thank you for crying about Bush Budgets… I never tire of those who participated int he Hue and cry of 150 billion dollar deficits only to riot in the streets to set up the 1500 billion dollar deficits, with which they’re perfectly happy.

            But then fools tickles me to no end… I can’t get my fill of you people.

          • Cory

            I believe there were many Libertarians who were in the streets. So what are you talking about?

          • American-By-Choice

            Fools… Specifically you and people like you. But if you need to include Liberals that call themselves libertarians as a means to being recognize as fools… I’m good with that. They don’t do any better than you’re doing.

          • Cory

            Fools because I believe there should be a balanced budget? Well that’s cool with me if you think that. You like high deficits?

          • American-By-Choice

            No… You’re a fool because you believe that A war which was fought against those who attacked the US on 9-11-01, killing 3000 innocent people, stripping a trillion dollars out of the economy, is ‘false’. Then you cry about the deficits spent to fight that war… while you say NOTHING about the order of magnitude spent in ANNUAL deficits, since the person you BLAME for the deficit, left office.

          • Cory

            What are you talking about I’ve blamed Obama numerous times. See that’s the problem when someone criticizes a president from your party you get defensive even though he signed TARP and a new entitlement program into law. Obama did the same thing and you’re outraged. The difference between you and me is I don’t like either political party so I don’t get upset when a president is rightfully being criticized. Thirdly, the Iraqis didn’t attack us so that war was unnecessary. Many in the Bush administration said that war was a mistake. I’m not on any party plantation like you obviously are sir.

          • Bob509

            I agree.. when Bush and the Republican had the chance they choose to spend… but we also had 2 wars going on… which if they would have just gone in there and turned both countries into Glass we would have save a lot of money and American lives….

          • Cory

            We should’ve at least gotten the oil that way my gas would be cheaper.

          • journogal

            So what is the excuse for high gas prices now since Bush has been out of office for 6 years? Is he still responsible for the prices? And if so, when does Obama bear responsibility for anything that happens while he is President?

          • Cory

            He bears all of the responsibility now. What’s your point?

        • American-By-Choice

          Yessir… could not agree more.

          I voted for GW four times… twice for Governor, twice for Prez.

          But I never voted for him in the primary.

  • Shane Finch

    I agree with Dana.

  • conservative2012

    I can’t agree with Dana. If Dr. Carson gets the nomination, and that’s a long shot, I don’t believe he will turn gun grabber. He stated his opinion, which I don’t agree with, but it was an opinion.

  • Deserttrek

    I like his openness and logical points. While I am a strong 2nd amendment supporter I will not be reactive at this time. We need people like Dr Carson speaking to the issues of our day. I support him until I see or hear a good reason not to.

  • conservative2012

    I also don’t think Dr. Carson is quite ready for the Presidency. Surgeon General maybe.

    • American-By-Choice

      The Position of Surgeon General is WITHOUT VALUE… It’s a pointless post, in which idiots sit to collect a pension.

      Carson isn’t going to be Surgeon General… he’s already making WAY more coin and in terms of prestige, he shot by that nugget many, MANY years ago.

  • sailor

    Uhhh…I think automatic weapons are already illegal….or did I miss something?

  • scott206

    Yeah he seems to be a classy individual, but if he’ll cave on the 2nd Amendment, it’s inevitable the rest will follow, because the 2nd is what protects the rest.

    • American-By-Choice

      Carson didn’t say anything that could lead any reasonable person to conclude that he would ‘cave’ on the 2nd amendment.

  • gridlock2

    It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it. If you live out in the country somewhere by yourself, I have no problem.

    I would rather you not have it…

    I have no problem…

    Sorry, I am getting a little tired of politicians who think their opinion matters so very much. I don’t really care what the President of the United States or Ben Carson or anyone else wants me to have, or what problems they have with it.

    Using language like that is careless and imprecise. But, even worse, it betrays an attitude that one’s desires should somehow have the force of law. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt…

  • yestradamous

    He’s a good guy, but the needle screeches off the record when I hear he thinks the earth is 6000 years old.
    I would still vote for him over any Democrat at this point, but still. Yikes.

  • DoctorSeuss

    Point to Ms Loesch. She is exactly right.

    • freeinaz

      Dr. Carson is a great man, but I agree with you and Ms Loesch, the 2nd amendment is not up for negotiation.

  • DeeBeeCooper

    It may be a civil right, but it’s also a moot point. Let him be anti-gun rights… it doesn’t matter. How anti-gun rights is he? doesn’t seem to be terribly passionate on the issue; certainly not nearly as anti-gun as obama, and look what obama was able to do…. nothing. So, let the wishy-washy moderates have their issue if it will help them decide to vote for him, and be still and know that gun rights will be safe anyway. It amazes me how simplistic some people are (yes I mean Dana), and how little they think of the big picture. If you’re looking for the perfect candidate, guess what… he or she will not be perfect for most other people… in other words, this person does NOT exist. When I opened this I thought it would be about abortion… but it’s not. BIRTH is a much more fundamental, much higher civil right than gun ownership. If Dr. Carson is in favor of allowing children to live, then he will be much better than any pro-choice candidate who happens to be all passionate about the 2nd amendment. Remember… it doesn’t matter! The 2nd amendment is SAFE! Get that through your thick skull before 2016,please!

  • AZGunslinger

    I think the world of Dr Carson but I will not ever vote for him as long as he supports gun control.

  • MissionaryJames

    Given his knowledge and understanding of things, plus his faith in God, Jesus
    and Scripture and the fact that He prays for guidance, I think that if and when confronted with such an issue or Bill, as President, He would do the Right thing… Carson would conclude that such is indeed a RIGHT and NOT AN ISSUE or LITMUS TEST as Dana rightfully declares. Carson would seek wise advisors and scan American History for the Founder’s advice on the issue and Carson would NOT ENTERTAIN SUCH A LAW that limits ARMS in certain areas!

    Yup, this is the CHARACTER THAT SHINES THROUGH and HE has a HISTORY and RECORD of doing just that, whereas EVERY CANDIDATE since BUSH the first idiot, from President on down HAS NOT HAD SUCH A HISTORY or GOOD RECORD and have displayed UTTER FOLLY and compromise!

    Like Thomas Jefferson analogized:
    “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it”

    Likewise, I say: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much common sense solutions from common-sense non-career politicians than to those attending too small a degree of common-sense with huge amounts of folly,
    fearfulness and compromise by the hands of the so-called Political Poll

    Let Jefferson’s Analogy INSTRUCT US ACCORDINGLY and let us DEAL WITH
    CARSONS POSSIBLE NEGATIVES rather than the NEGATIVES we have been forced to endure and pay for with our blood, money, surrender of freedoms and
    possessions to date, at the HANDS of the LIKES of the GOP/DNC PICS
    and/or STATUS QUO CAREER POLITICIANS, who have NOT DEFENDED our Borders, allowed Enemies to freely walk across such, spend us into eternal debt
    beyond oblivion, taxed us to death via wasteful programs and inflation,
    endorsed or allowed Marxists to infiltrate us and so much more!

    I’m ready for REAL CHANGE that LEADS US BACKWARDS, to the CONSTITUTION, DECLARATION, BILL OF RIGHT, MAYFLOWER COMPACT, so that we can REALLY MOVE FORWARD in the RIGHT DIRECTION, rather than MOVING FORWARD with idiots who believe that FORWARD means BACKWARDS into Tyranny and Despotism and Stateism and the likes….


  • AZWarrior

    “I think Ben Carson would be great as a guy who goes around giving good speeches.”
    No thanks. We already have one of them.

    • tedlv


  • X3Charlie

    “He could be the next Reagan.”
    Well Reagan did go along with gun control.

    • Richard Jefferies

      He did after his term in office though. It was still shocking, but it was a different time. Murders were triple what they are today. I’m not saying he was right, especially giving his support to the assault weapons bill, but it isn’t today. Gun owners are unequivocally drawing our lands in the sand and letting the grabbers know that we have compromised enough, they weren’t as ready to do that in 1993.

  • AndAwayWeGo

    I can admire Dr. Carson on a personal level, but it weakens his argument that Obamacare is the worst thing “since Slavery” when we now have evidence that he advised the President and his staff to “implement it slowly.” That’s either a sign of rank hypocrisy, terrible judgment, or both.

  • Amici Journal

    I would very much like to see Doctor Carson run, however blacks have the nerve to call him an Uncle Tom.. What a disgrace this is such a man that struggled an educated himself to become one of the worlds top Brain surgeons.. Come on p[eole be realistic.. You don’t get any better than that!!

    • tedlv

      wI would really like someone to explain: What, specifically is an “Uncle Tom”, and how can that possibly be derogatory? I have read the HB Stowe book, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”? Do these folks know what “Uncle Tom” did? I doubt it.

      • CustomDesigned

        Uncle Tom refused to think like a slave, and therefore was a very bad person – as is any other uppity black person.

  • anarchyst

    Dr. Carson is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    I used to think highly of him until an interview on FOX News showed his “true color”.

    Dr. Carson was being interviewed on one of the Fox News shows about the Zimmerman case. I damn near fell out of my chair when Dr. Carson defended Trayvon Martin and declared that “Zimmerman should have been convicted of something”. Once again, an intelligent, accomplished individual uses the “race card” to justify abhorrent behavior based on skin color.

    Upon further investigation, it was noted that Dr. Carson is no friend to gun owners and would like to see Chicago-style gun control imposed on law-abiding gun owners.

    That being said . . .

    I would support Col West without reservation.

    Sad to say, I cannot support Dr. Carson’s bid for public office.

    • Maryland_Malcontent

      Hopefully he doesn’t make one. He worked for Hopkins, a school whose policy towards recent student muggings has been to “blame the victim and sweep it under the rug” and I believe that that bastion of liberalism (was old Johns such a progressive?) has warped him most tragically and irreparably in critical matters.

  • anarchyst

    The o’bama and his minions are perversely the best thing for gun owners.. You see, the o’bama’s pronouncements on “gun control” galvanized Second Amendment supporters like no other. Politicians were threatened with “loss of office” if they voted affirmatively on any new anti-gun legislation. Of course, on the state level, things were different. . .
    You can bet that if a Republican had secured the presidency, there would have been some “compromise” anti-gun legislation passed. Republicans usually “give the democrats what they want” by “compromise” . . . and will be their undoing . . .

  • Brian Hager

    The 2nd Amendment gives the Constitution Teeth!!! Without it you will lose all of the other Constitutional Rights!! Only a SLAVE has no right to own a weapon to protect themselves!!! We the People are not SLAVES!!!

  • Dutchie12

    I agree with Dana. There is no negotiating gun rights. They stand alone without restrictions or quantifiers.

  • Bruce Armstrong

    If it’s a choice between Dana Loesch or Dr. Ben Carson, I’ll go with Dr. Carson every single time!

  • Exodus2011

    Dr Carson is a great talented American Leader …but since he is in favor of INFRINGING the #2A I doubt he would be able to unify all Conservative factions, which is required to win the GOP nomination, against the GOPest candidate

    Only the real conservative deal can do that IMV

  • James A. Lonon

    To be honest, I think one black president per decade is enough.

  • navalav8r

    Dr. Carson’s statement on gun rights was a deal killer for me as well. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails.

  • Tom Joad

    It’s possible with his background he never dug into this issue, it is possible moving into politics and having to consider things, topics he might realize how silly his off the cuff position was ini that video. If he maintains such notions that gun rights are as trivial as laws regulating bicycle helmets than he is disqualified in my view.

  • adsdasd

    Carson is an intelligent man. Perhaps he needs to delve deeper into the civil rights issue and see the flaw in his thinking. Again, he’s intelligent enough to dialogue about it. If he doesn’t change positions, in light of our Constitutional Rights, then he’s not the candidate for us.

  • 1911HeadBanger

    I remember him talking about his views on Gun Control and Dana is correct. He has no problem with Gun Control. I wonder what other parts of the Constitution he had no problem restricting?

  • Scott Wilson

    Restricting my 2nd amendment rights is a deal killer, Next? Good guy, just not President material.

  • pbtruth

    Sorry folks. I truly like Doc Carson but we just had an affirmative action no experienced person as president for 6 years and look what we got. Granted Doc Carson seems to have some intelligence unlike our current President and a love of country instead of hate for his country. but I don’t want to take another chance like that. I still don’t think there is another Reagan out there to clean up the mess that Obama has made of this country. So I am still looking for some one to rise up be fore 2016.

    • prado4587

      Wouldn’t voting for someone just because they’re not black rather than their qualifications and skills be a form of affirmative action?

  • CannonBall2014

    Dr. Carson grew up on the streets of Detroit. Do you know how many children die from gun violence in that city? I understand what how people are concerned about his view on the second amendment but at the same time, you should take in account what Dr. Carson has lived through. Remember, Dr. Carson was a Pediatric Neurosurgeon. Always has, and will always pick the side of what’s best for the children. Regardless. You may not like what he says, but at least you know where he stands.

    • ceili_dancer

      And how many of those guns were legal? Would it be the same if it was knifes or baseball bats?

  • Richard Jefferies

    He may have those beliefs but I wouldn’t expect him to act on them. Obama is a certified gun grabber and he can’t get any legislation passed even using atrocities like Sandy Hook to gin up support. It is one of the issues that congress votes with their constituents because they know it is a death knell issue.

    • GTFOBigGovt

      That makes no sense whatsoever. He either BELIEVES in the 2nd Amendment or he doesn’t. And he doesn’t. Don’t vote for politicians based on what you’d “expect”. JEEEECH.

  • APW

    When he speaks about his position on gun rights, he’s speaking as a non-politician. I think that if he were to run for office, he would certainly take American civil rights into the formation of his platform, personal feelings aside. It’s a moot point anyway, as I am sure he won’t run. Let him use his great mind to write opinion pieces. He is the sort who could persuade independents to a more conservative bent.

  • gtwreck

    Ms Loesch is right when she says that this is a civil right. It seems to me that she forgets the ability of SCOTUS to make sure that our rights are not watered down. My only concern would be to make sure we control the Senate with conservatives in charge to prevent any SCOTUS replacements being anti Second Amendment idealogues. The Gun Control nuts are not going away so this is going to be an ongoing argument. If Ben Carson looks like our best shot we need to take it and keep a careful eye on everything he does but this is something we should be doing no matter who is in the White house.

  • Maineloon

    I like Ben Carson, I think he is sincere and has his heart in the right place on most things. I had not heard this about him until now. I would definitely would have a reservation about voting for that position, but just saying that doesn’t mean he could get it done or push it too hard. Love Dana for being solid on this issue..

  • Lowen_Lowen

    Its just that we’re clamoring for a real conservative that doesn’t have a fatal flaw. RYAN budget RUBIO Immigration BUSH Common Core Est Repub. Draft Bill Whittle for Pete’s Sakes –

  • MikeO

    Dr. Carson for HHS Secretary in the next administration to unravel the Obamacare nightmare.

  • Tony Mareshie

    Not really caring what a blogger has to say on the subject. Her opinion is not going to make any difference to me, nor should it to any of you.

    • GTFOBigGovt

      A blogger? Cute. Why are you on Malkin’s site then? Condescending. OH WAIT. All those old farts who had OPINIONS creating the USA? PFFFFT.

      de Tocqueville? Just some old 19th century ~blogger.

      • Tony Mareshie

        Are you freakin serious? Loesch = de Tocqueville? For that matter, Loesch=Malkin? Riiiggghhht. I see no reason to elevate her significance or placing her on some sort of pedestal of great political thinkers. I prefer to take in information and process it. Couldn’t give one sh!t if Loesch has issues with Carson. And for you, you are not supposed to drink the bong water.

  • GTFOBigGovt

    Thankfully, he’ll never even get CLOSE to being a candidate let alone the nominee.

  • Christina Maclane

    Still better than Rand who supported the knock down of DOMA. #1m1w

  • Matt Delashaw

    If he agreed not to mess with the Second Amendment despite his personal views i’d vote for him.

  • TeaPartyLee

    Fundamental human rights are non-negotiable.

    I will not knowingly vote for someone who wants to deprive me and my fellow citizens of rights that are inalienable, no matter what their motivation for doing so.

  • Franklin Crittenden

    Mark Rubio, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz or any mix and match of two of them for President and VP at this point sounds good!

    But let’s heard what the have to say first.

    Sarah, please don’t offended but you would be poison the Republican Presidential Ticket.

    Run for the Senator of Alaska!

  • Emma Brown

    I agree with her on that, although I DO like Dr. Carson, and his stance on a lot of other things..the second amendment is our right, and should not be withheld from us…limiting out right to bear arms will not do ANYTHING to stop the killings by guns…since ONLY criminals are the ones who do the murdering, whether with guns, knives, clubs, hands, etc…

  • Trrffya

    I like Carson but , his stance on gun control , kills any chance of me voting for him.0

  • Cleveland Cleary

    He could still be Pres., just make sure congress doesn’t present him any gun control bills. The president doesn’t make laws, after all…at least it is not in his job description as noted in the constitution.

  • Eddie frOly

    I fully agree with her! Sorry but that’s how it starts. Libs on both sides know if you put a frog in boiling water it will jump out, but if you put it in cold water and put a flame to the pot the frog will never realize they’re being cooked. It’s the same with any and all liberty!

  • Noni77

    Love Carson! But Dana is right. This is very disturbing.

  • Leonard

    Carson is a doctor and a Christian conservative. He probably would not know the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a stapler. Guns are not his expertise but to paint him as anti-second amendment is dishonest… I don’t agree with banning guns at a local level but I do think we need to have balance in regards to public safety. Willy-nilly gun ownership actually threatens the rights of law abiding citizens gun ownership. We can get away with that in lightly populated areas–but c’mon, be honest.. If you live in a city, admit you meet people all the time you would feel very uncomfortable with them owning an arsenal! I will not reject Carson because we do not have 100 percent agreement on every point of issue.

    • Richard Nightwood

      I live in the exurbs and have met people like that, yet they might turn out to the be the same person who would sacrifice themselves to save me from a dire situation. Scum like Jeffery Dahmer and John Gacy got away with their crimes for so long because they seemed so “normal”, it was the dude who seemed odd in the head but never hurt a fly who made people uneasy simply because of their perception of him.

      Fact is, I’ve met city people who make me feel uncomfortable knowing they vote, how is that any different.

  • teapartydoc

    Perhaps he can be educated on this. However, as a doctor myself, I know how much the rest of my colleagues are so set in their ways. When you spend your life always thinking of yourself as the smartest person in the room, it’s hard to acquire new modes of thinking.

  • Joseph

    I’m with Dana. He’d make a number of good cabinet positions, but POTUS? No. I’m done with people who think they have the power to determine which civil rights apply to which people.

  • garygnfp

    He isnt taking away any civil right. He basically is saying that the specifics of gun laws is a state issue. Isnt that exactly what it is today? DC Chicago and other large cities have more restrictions than other areas.

    • CustomDesigned

      Those restrictions are unconstitutional.

  • Marty Robinson

    Dr. Carson needs to get some things straight about our Constitution.

  • JimmieMee

    If he did run it would be the first time since Ronald Reagan that we had a candidate who would consider doing something for no better reason than it was the RIGHT thing to do….for me that is a HUGE qualifier

  • Thomas Mitchell

    No person shall infringe upon our constitutional rights!!!! Leave this Constitution alone!!!

  • gunnyf

    I love Ben Carson but Dana Loesch is absolutely correct. What’s good for the American citizen in rural America has to be good for the American Citizen in urban America… No Litmus tests? This isn’t a corporate merger or purchasing a radio station. It’s civil rights. Suppose Ben Carson agreed with everything you do except he is in favor of limiting freedom of religion to Protestants and Zoroastrians? I would like to see the pro-gun side try to educate him first (in a sensible fashion) before kicking him to the curb. (I really do like and respect him though…)

  • cliftonbritt

    If altering an amendment of the Bill of Rights, by under the table or a backroom method, any other Amendment or all of the Amendments can be made to say whatever one wants them to say. As most of us know, only a Constitutional Convention can legally change our Constitution. Still, State of Connecticut passed a law negating the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Government making it near impossible to own a firearm, making ammunition impossible to buy, driving firearms manufacturers out of business or placing an unreasonable tax on supplies associated with 2nd Amendment rights is without the slightest doubt an infringement on our guaranteed constitutional rights. It is not the Bill of Privileges but the Bill of Rights!

  • Greenie Beanie

    Since liberty cannot guarantee satisfaction, some people view the challenge of making their own way as more of a strain than an opportunity.

  • shortcuttt

    After exposing Dana’s ghost name on this thread( steve of kosovo ) and confronted her about it, all of my post were removed from this thread! And you guys are worried about Obama?? You should be concerned with the Nazi tactics on this cite! Creepy!

  • PoliticsMinistry

    Carson also referred to ‘White Liberals’ as the most racist people in America. Had he said ‘Liberals’, that would have been okay and true, but he said ‘White Liberals’. That, itself, is a racist comment.

  • Some Old Dude

    This type of thinking cost us the 2012 presidential election. Four million Republicans stayed home because Mitt Romney wasn’t conservative enough. Ron Paul’s followers were probably a large percentage of these. So we have a second Obama term as a result.

    For Dana, as for millions of Americans, the only perfect candidate would be herself. This is a sad political fact. So if her candidate isn’t perfect, she won’t support him, and may not vote for him. Poof… another Democrat president.

    Wake up, people! If the GOP puts up a less-than-perfect candidate in 2016 and you DON’T VOTE, the result is four years of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, or some other fool who believes that global warming is more of a threat to the American way of life than terrorism. [And one who is CERTAIN to work for four years to take away your guns.]

    • David Wright

      Sorry, stud. ANYONE who is so squishy on something so FUNDAMENTAL as RKBA is NOT Presidental material. Not when the likes of old George Washington called arms America’s “LIBERTY TEETH!!!”

  • Some Old Dude

    Oops, posted twice… Old.

  • Frustrated Teacher

    Just because someone is conservative and makes eloquent speeches doesn’t mean they will be a good President. The current resident of the White House is a perfect example of how eloquence does NOT translate into the ability to lead and guide a country. Bill Clinton was another. There are MUCH better conservative leaders out there if the Rep establishment would get out of the way and let them run.

  • donzap

    She is right. The Second Amendment is something that should be honored as it protects our liberty. Based on Carson’s statements, he is now a non-starter.

    Furthermore, his view on guns being held by people in a populated area reveal what can only be termed ignorance about the impact of guns being owned by law-abiding citizens. All reputable studies show that more guns in the hands of good people result in less crime.

  • radicallyalyssa

    Wow, this is hugely disappointing…I’ve always been a HUGE Ben Carson fan, but Dana is not wrong. Gun RIGHTS isn’t an “issue.” I can understand why he might feel that way about a certain area, but law abiding citizens in Chicago or New York have a right to own a firearm. Period.

  • stalwart01

    Even democrats don’t have the chutzpah do pursue gun control. You think Carson would?

  • skip

    Plain and simple Carson is black, that takes him out for me, I have already seen how blacks lie to get in office and then what they do when they get elected. Case in point, Obama.

  • skip

    Ted Cruz-Rand Paul is the winner and by far the best candidates for the GOP. Rubio is an idiot, so is Jeb Bush, they are status quo old school RHINO’s just like John McCain. They are the problem, not the solution.

  • Tigger647

    He is a reasonable man, so I would be willing to bet that after some consdieration, he would be able to see how wrong his statement was at that time and retract it. He does not strike me as a person who wants to do anything contrary to our Constitution. I think he just put that out as an idea that was not fully thought out. I think we all have done that, so I have not problem with it if he retracts it.

  • Dexter Alarius

    Perfect for Secretary of Health and Human Services, though.

  • Kevin Blankenship

    I agree with Dana, the whole restricting of the 2nd Amendment Right is a deal killer! I really like Dr. Carson too!! But any politician who thinks gun control or infringement is OK is not getting my vote! They may as well be for slavery because it is that serious of a NO GO for me!!! Freedoms need restored not taken away enough of that UnConstitutional madness!!!

  • popsinaz

    One of the things I personally like MOST about Dr. Ben Carson is that he consistently uses God given COMMON SENSE regarding most issues. Crazy people and criminals who live in big cities are more apt to discharge weapons than those of us with responsible, good judgment. Access to weapons for these types of people (mental problems or criminals) is a big mistake. Hello????

    • MrJest

      But the approach is bass-ackwards – don’t restrict the right; restrict the crazy people and criminals. We really do need to rebuild the mental asylum structure and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

  • Lin Ellis

    I love Ben Carson!! Having said that, I don’t believe he is ready for the POTUS’ job. Wait–wait–before you getcher panties twisted, folks–I DO think he’d be great in the next Republican Prez’s Cabinet–or perhaps a House or Senate seat for a term. That would enable him to get his political feet wet, and gain the experience needed to become POTUS. And, perhaps time to rethink his position on the 2nd Amendment. As it stands, if he were in the Primary against the 2nd Amendment, I’d have to hope another person got the nomination. Ugh.

  • richard40

    Being weak on the 2nd amendment is indeed a big problem. Christie has the same problem (along with others). Another concern with Ben Carson is is total lack of political experience. I would prefer he wins a race as a senator or governor first, to see how well he can deal with the real political world. But I agree he has great views otherwise, would make a great cabinet appointee, and perhaps a good VP.

  • Liberty1941

    He is just another fake conservative, and a member of the RINO clan.

  • Some Old Dude

    I repeat for David White (whose post I cannot find)… good for you. Stand on your principles and either (a) don’t vote for Carson should he be the candidate, (b) stay home and don’t vote at all, or (c) go third-party. “Any of the above” results in another Democrat in the White House who will erase any doubt about what he (or she… OMG) will try to do with the Second Amendment. You can bet your DD 214 on that. Love you Brother, but you are part of the problem.

  • Guest

    All political leaders must be black. It just makes sense.

    • Joseph O Morrow

      To what sense of the word “black” are you referring?

      Once that is established, in what way would that make sense?

      (Only trying to minimize emotional fallout by restoring logic and reason!)

  • Joseph O Morrow

    Seems like anybody who has anything unique to say that stirs a few feelings or sentiments is being asked to run for president. Not that Dr. Ben Carson only stirs a few feelings! Most of the time a prophet does best and remains freest to have the greatest influence by NOT becoming king as well.

    Most of us don’t have the time these days to dig deeply into every potential candidate’s whole life. Especially now with the pen and the phone always pressing harder on us.

    We all have potential contact, however, with the Greatest Mind of All. He states clearly His terms of engagement in His Great Book to those who actually read it for themselves until they are free enough in their minds to allow It also to Read Them as well.

    Let’s get back to our roots. Let’s stop allowing the adversary’s useful idiots to hold that Greatest Book in political prison by referring to it as merely something religious. Contrary to overwhelming propaganda, the Bible is NOT the establishment of a state religion any more than is the use of public property for occasional church services, or for that matter the use of school property to brainwash our kids. If any religion has been established in this country it is the religion of the environmentalists. That is the kind of oppressive religious establishment that the First Amendment was trying to keep us all free from!

    Folks: Neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights actually established our rights and freedoms in the first place. They were written in a way that acknowledges what has already existed from the beginning so we would know what to keep defending ourselves. The generation that wrote them was already benefiting from those rights before the documents were written. Otherwise, would they have been free enough to successfully shuck off the political bonds of the tyrant? They were greatly aware of the time-tested wisdom of documenting truth for the benefit of posterity!

    Let’s allow our Original-Rights Provider to again establish our rights and freedoms in our daily practice. Therefore, let’s also learn and deeply know and live by the responsibilities He also lays out for us in His Book. Only then will we qualify to keep and abound in all the rest. Let’s relearn what it really means to seek first His Kingdom and His Right Thinking and Doing, so the Greater Works He promised will just naturally and effortlessly flow through us as a light to our fellows in this dark age.

  • Wishsong

    Yep, agree whole heartedly with Dana. I like Carson, but he is a “Butter.” As in, “I support the Second Amendment, BUT…”