• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Breitbart: Dr. Ben Carson Against Gun Registration: We 'Should Be Really Concerned' About Martial Lawhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Should-Be-Really-Concerned-About-Martial-Lawhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Should-Be-Really-Concerned-About-Martial-Law

On Monday at The New York Meeting, Dr. Ben Carson said he does not believe in gun registration because America's massive debt could transform the nation into a third-world country in which martial law may be imposed.

Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who has been getting buzz in conservative circles, said that he changed his mind and was against gun registration because of the "sinister internal forces" that could surface in that scenario. He said he "used to think they needed to be registered, but if you register them they just come and find you and take your guns."

"If we were only concerned about external forces, then we would be okay," he said. "But there are some pretty sinister internal forces."
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.
He then asked the audience to think about a scenario in which countries around the world drop the dollar as their reserve currency.

"We have a national debt that is so high, and it's being raised even higher," he said. "Now, the only reason we can do that is because we are the reserve currency for the world. What if that changes?"

Carson mentioned that Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to "remove America as our reserve currency" if America imposed economic sanctions.

"What if other people come along?" Carson asked, saying China and the U.N have mentioned doing the same. "We would become a third-world nation overnight. Occupy Wall Street would be a walk in the park. And all of a sudden, the things that would be going on in this country which would necessitate marital law ...
all this could happen very rapidly. We should be really concerned."[Emphasis added]
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I undwerstand that every state in the country "except Montana" requires registration of firearm's....am I right?
Blew me away. You're right, and I didn't know that to be the case in Montana.
NRA Institute of Legislative Action: Montanahttp://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/montana.aspxhttp://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/montana.aspx

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

“The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”
Article 2, Section 12.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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 is 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.

It would have been worth the trip too (to see a state with freedoms & to purchase) except for the fact that I live in Communist New Jersey. Im waiting for having to register my butter knives & hammers.... maybe even paint scrapers.:BangHead:
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dr. Carson’s prescription for gun control
Mar 11, 2014

"So if Dr. Carson wants to play, it’s time to start lining up pieces on his side of the board....Republican voters, on the other hand, allow for much more limited rhetorical flexibility with their most sensitive issues, especially gun control. And that’s where Ben Carson runs into a bit of tough sledding, because he has expressed some sympathy for gun control efforts. This lead to a fair number of “nice man, but I could never vote for him for President” assessments from conservatives."

That was basically my assessment of him:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2080512#post2080512

At least he is smart enough to realize what a hot potato 2nd amendment rights are. Anyway, he's not the first politician to back pedal in order to get the job.

Now, is he a neocon? Would he surround himself with neocons in his administration?

With d-CON the neocon being so enthusiastic for him it causes me to wonder.
 
No.........................
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.
Now, is he a neocon? Would he surround himself with neocons in his administration?

With d-CON the neocon being so enthusiastic for him it causes me to wonder.
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.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Neoconservatism is just as much to blame as socialism for this 17 trillion dollar abyss we're in now. Are neocons so dense that they can't understand that the U.S. simply cannot afford to police the world?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neoconservatism is just as much to blame as socialism for this 17 trillion dollar abyss we're in now. Are neocons so dense that they can't understand that the U.S. simply cannot afford to police the world?
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

OK.....so what type of an AF does Russia have these days. Much of this will come down to technology & these guys arent Iraqi military.

Got this off the INTERNET....looks like we got more attack helos (Apache, Kiowa etc) but they got more tanks.....blah blah blah. Maybe this should be another thread.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=russia
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually he is. I posted on it right after he asked the question. Now, back to the OP topic? Thanks.


Thank you in turn for the well researched information! :thumbs:


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.

Interesting spin.....cant help but think about my beloved Governor & where he would be put on the profile scale...:smilewinkgrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK.....so what type of an AF does Russia have these days. Much of this will come down to technology & these guys arent Iraqi military.
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.
Got this off the INTERNET....looks like we got more attack helos (Apache, Kiowa etc) but they got more tanks.....blah blah blah. Maybe this should be another thread.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=russia
Good idea. Want to start it? :thumbsup:
 
Top