Why I Won’t Be Supporting Ben Carson for High Office of Any Sort
Bill Quick

Ben Carson on Gun Control

Appearing on Glenn Beck’s radio show this past week, Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.
Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.”

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.”

Sorry. That sort of shit is a deal-breaker for me. I give Carson credit for admitting it up front, though, so I wouldn’t end up voting for him without knowing how he really felt about one of my primary litmus-test issues of individual liberty.

Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


Why I Won’t Be Supporting Ben Carson for High Office of Any Sort — 6 Comments

  1. His calculus is all wrong – large cities are where the concentration of predators is the highest, and where a semi-auto is MOST needed. Predators drive cars too, and those can go wherever they want – so the urban/suburban/country distinction is irrelevant.

  2. Why this isn’t just about the Second: If Carson is willing to rationalize away the constitutional guarantee of my right to keep and bear arms, what other parts of the constitution might he find equally inconvenient, if his thinking leads him in that direction?

    It’s like Rubio: If these guys are willing to sacrifice one principl important to me, how can I trust them not to sacrifice others that are equally important?