Dr. Ben Carson concerned about martial law, comes out against gun registration

There was a time I would have thought anyone thinking an American president would impose martial law for anything less than a nuclear attack on our country was nutso. But Dr. Carson hits pretty close to where my thinking has been taking me lately. I think the possibility this will happen is far too likely.

He also painted a pretty realistic scenario in which economic triggers abroad would cause martial law to be declared.

There will be those who accuse Dr. Carson of "flip-flopping," and the first shot of that accusation will come form the Republican establishment. I trust Dr. Carson. He speaks plainly, he doesn't mince words, and he has reconsidered his previous thoughts and decided gun registration of any kind is a bad idea.

I agree with him.

 

Blew me away. You're right, and I didn't know that to be the case in Montana.

Look at the chart accompanying the webpage. There are no regulations regarding purchase, registration, licensing, and the only carry permit required is for inside city limits for handguns. Even more interesting of the reciprocity between Montana and other states for carry permits. There's a map showing which states from which Montana recognizes permits, and which states recognize Montana permits. It's very telling.

That's the way the founders envisioned it, with the exception, I'd say, of the permit-to-carry. They saw no need for such things.

 

Actually he is. I posted on it right after he asked the question. Now, back to the OP topic? Thanks.

That wasn't an assessment so much as a desire to know more about him.

I could find a lot more threatening things than free markets, limited government and aggressive foreign policy -- the very definition of neoconservativism -- to be more afraid of that you apparently are afraid of neoconservatives.

I wonder if you and others onboard here think Boehner, McConnell, others like them such as McCain, Jeb Bush (perhaps), and milquetoast Pat Roberts of Kansas are "neoconservatives" and base your judgments of neoconservatism based on their publicly stated views. None of them are neoconservatives. They simply lust for power, and I am convinced if they had to become communists to stay in power, most of them would.

 

1) The $17 trillion debt crisis was caused by social program spending by an ultra-liberal, very likely Marxist. It was not caused by us "policing the world." Bush had a handle on the spending for Iraq and Afghanistan and was in the process of actually paying down the wars' debt before this idiot we have in the White House now lied his way into office.

2) Neoconservatives don't want to police the world anymore than anyone else. That's the misnomer that isolationists can't seem to grasp.

However Clinton and Little Marxist Dictator gutted our military -- and the latter continues in his intent to decimate it. If not for that, we wouldn't have to police the world. All we'd have to do is threaten to show up offshore of some belligerent country, or overfly them with a couple flights of B-1s and B-2s, remind them we're watching, and that would be the end of it.

If we had shown Russia any threat of force whatsoever when they invaded Crimea, even a hyper-nationalist like ol' Vlad would withdraw from Ukraine. Liberals don't have the guts to show force. They'd rather engage in magical thinking that tells them "diplomacy" will resolve the crisis. Recent example: Kerry's nine months of "diplomacy" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians want nothing less than the annihilation of Israel, and are not rational enough to "talk peace." Most of the liberal American public, as well as Kerry and the White House, utterly fail to grasp that truth.

There comes a time when, regardless of whether we can "afford it" or not, action has to be taken. With the Russian-Ukraine situation, we could have nipped this in the bud and kept everybody in place, grumbling but at an uneasy peace, just by showing a willingness to intervene. Now we've given Putin hope that he can do anything he wants, and with this airhead LMD in power, he probably can.

That just means somewhere down the road, we're going to fight the war we could have avoided weeks ago, by showing some cojones. The LMD doesn't have any.

 

True, but they aren't up to U.S. air power standards, either. The Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback is their current frontline fighter, and it looks and acts surprisingly like an F-15, which we are phasing out. No doubt they have better electronics and computers onboard than we did when we rolled out the F-15 30 years ago, but still, they aren't up to our abilities.

Good idea. Want to start it? :thumbsup: