I am voting for this guy. I'm going to check out his book to see what he's got to say now that he's in the political stage.

http://realbencarson.com

2013 Dr. Benjamin Carson's Amazing Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast with Obama Present


His life story is a way better role model and example for young Americans that the current POS.. I mean POTUS.

Ben Carson Biography
http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422#synopsis

2009 TV Movie: Gifted Hands - the Ben Carson Story (90 mins)

Supposedly pro 2A as well.

He does have a problem with owning semi-autos in urban areas.  Hopefully he can be convinced of the error of such a viewpoint.

.

Rand Paul is good too.  May the best candidate run against Hillary.

Carson is pretty much a slight variant of your basic Republican party-line politician, who frequently presents his policy positions wrapped his self-invented "moral superiority" based upon his superstitious religious beliefs. He's clearly one of those people who "support the second amendment, but..." people. Remind you of anyone (Shannon Watts, Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, etc.)? He has some "gray areas" where his anti-liberty government-control bias isn't perfectly clear, but he has a number of policy positions that are clearly and unequivocally authoritarian and anti-personal freedom. I'm just going to give several examples without comment, and then comment on one. He asserts that the government has the moral authority to state who may and may not enter into a legal contract (marriage). He believes the government ought to continue to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate and/or fine mentally competent adults for engaging in activities of mutual consent where neither party claims to have been harmed in any way (e.g. sexual activity between consenting adults when value is exchanged, "gambling", use of psychotropic agents currently deemed "illegal" by arbitrary and capricious government regulation (influenced by multi-billion-dollar special interest industries).

This last case, of "illegal" drugs, is where Carson is possibly clearest in his Republican big-government statist nanny-state anti-liberty anti-personal freedom views (though other positions of his are likewise statist). He has stated that cannabis ought to remain illegal (except for a very few medical exemptions) and that people possessing it ought to be incarcerated by the state. He's not so clear about his position on alcohol and nicotine, which most cannabis users used prior to using cannabis (and usually used illegally as they are mostly legally underage when they first use those "gateway" substances). He argues, in spite of massive amounts of peer-reviewed medical literature, that cannabis is a "gateway drug", and leads to not only other psychotropic substances that he deems dangerous (again, he doesn't seem to ever include alcohol or nicotine in his statements), but also leads to "hedonistic activity", which is apparently prohibited by his superstitious religious values. He wants to impose those values on all citizens, even if there is no provable harm to anyone by those citizens engaging in said activities.

“Medical use of marijuana in compassionate cases has been proven to be useful, but recognize that marijuana is what is known as a gateway drug - a starter for people who move on to heavier duty drugs. I don't think this is something we really want for our society.”

Source: http://www.foxnews.c om/politics/2014/01/02/dr-carson-americans-need-to-talk-about-ramifications-legal-marijuana from the Carson advocacy site "runbenrun"): http://www.runbenrun.org/issues

I suppose if you are looking for the "lesser of two evils" he might come up the "lesser" depending on who you put him up against. He'd certainly lose (i.e. be the greater evil) when pitted against any libertarian.

This article has video of Carson's views on people's right to possess cannabis, as well as links to sources of peer-reviewed medical literature illustrating his ignorance about cannabis as a "gateway drug".

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/dr-ben-carson-marijuana-gateway-drug-legalization-descent-hedonistic-activity/#axzz3JI0M6Qp1

On the second amendment:

“But the real reason that they put it [2nd Amendment] there is recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves." 

“I would never allow the Second Amendment to be jeopardized.”

"I used to think they (guns) 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, but there are some pretty sinister internal forces."

"I truly believe in Second Amendment rights. I would never advocate anything to interfere with Second Amendment rights; however, I do think we have to be intelligent."

"We need to engage in a discussion about, 'Is there something we can do?'" (about keeping guns away from criminals and mentally ill people.)

"We have to keep in mind that law-abiding American citizens absolutely should have gun rights."

“To threaten the Second Amendment rights of ordinary American citizens is itself insanity. Those wishing to ban all assault weapons fail to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment.”

"What we need to be able to do is to sit down and have a discussion about, 'Is there a way to ameliorate that situation and is there a way to keep weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill without compromising any provision of the second amendment.'"

Not an expert on drugs or drug use but there are those that would agree about marijuana being a gateway drug.  I also agree that it has medical benefits as a pain suppressor.

I think it depends on the individual. Some people are more prone to addiction while others seem to be able to shrug it off.

In my non-expert opinion, the problems start when a person takes alcohol, nicotine or marijuana to cope with a problem instead of dealing with the real issues in their lives. If the real issues do not get addressed, it worsens and the addiction get worse.

I remember an advice I gave my younger sibling during college about alcohol.

"You can drink alcoholic beverages but make sure never to drink when you are sad or alone, only when you are happy and with others.  And never drink and drive."

I think Dr Carson would make a great president. The fact he is not a career politician make him an even better choice.  If he picks a superb cabinet, he should do just fine.  Logic, reason,  and conservative values will bring this country back from the cliff.

[Carson quotes]
On the second amendment:

“But the real reason that they put it [2nd Amendment] there is recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves." 

“I would never allow the Second Amendment to be jeopardized.”

...[Etc.]

Text and video of Mr. Carson answering questions from Glen Beck:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservative-hero-ben-carson-to-beck-you-have-no-right-to-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.”

*********

How many of you guys (and gals) on Oahu live "out in the country by yourself"? If not, he doesn't want you to have any semi-automatic weapons, despite all his other vague general utterances about his support of the Second Amendment. Almost everyone who supports various degrees of "common sense gun safety regulations" (aka "gun control") to one extent or another claim to "support the Second Amendment". Mr. Carson is vague about the details as to exactly what his support of the Second Amendment looks like as a practical reality. Apparently you urban, near urban, not "out in the country somewhere by yourself" filks are going to have to turn in a lot tools if he gets into a position where he can get his program/values enacted into law.  I haven't seen Carson repudiate that urban/country distinction as to the privilege (I don't think anyone would seriously argue that "rights" are dependent on population density) of possessing semi-autos. He made similar comments on May 23, 2014: http://bearingarms.com/ben-carson-really-get-purpose-second-amendment/

Not an expert on drugs or drug use but there are those that would agree about marijuana being a gateway drug.  I also agree that it has medical benefits as a pain suppressor.

I think it depends on the individual. Some people are more prone to addiction while others seem to be able to shrug it off.

In my non-expert opinion, the problems start when a person takes alcohol, nicotine or marijuana to cope with a problem instead of dealing with the real issues in their lives. If the real issues do not get addressed, it worsens and the addiction get worse.

I remember an advice I gave my younger sibling during college about alcohol.

"You can drink alcoholic beverages but make sure never to drink when you are sad or alone, only when you are happy and with others.  And never drink and drive."

Yes, "there are those that would agree about marijuana being a gateway drug". And there are those that agree that firearm possession, including and/or especially CCW, by law-abiding citizens leads to more crime (assaults, rapes, homicides, suicides, robberies, car jacking, etc.). What do both these groups have in common? They are both pitifully wrong, and either ignorant of the quality of the studies used as evidence, incapable of critical thinking, and/or lying. Cannabis is clearly without doubt far less "addictive" than either alcohol or nicotine, not to mention having far fewer and less serious health and associated economic consequences. Please give me Mr. Carson's rationale for the legality of alcohol and the illegality of cannabis. Because if it amounts to "gateway drug" and "hedonistic activity" that means he is either pathetically ignorant, a liar, or blinded by his superstition.

The right to smoke marijuana is no where close to the right to bear arms.  I didn't think recreational drugs is mentioned anywhere in the bill of rights.

The right to smoke marijuana is no where close to the right to bear arms.  I didn't think recreational drugs is mentioned anywhere in the bill of rights.

Who ever said anything about a "right" to possess or consume cannabis? Straw man the best you can do? Why don't you address the issues as presented? You support Carson who wants to deny your right to keep and bear certain (semi-automatic) arms unless you live "out in the country by yourself". Where is that geographical/population density standard mentioned anywhere in the bill of rights? Alcohol and nicotine are recreational drugs that have massively more significant negative health and economic consequences than cannabis use, yet you refuse to address the rational and logical arguments and supporting facts that demonstrate either the ignorance or deceit of your preferred candidate. Why do you avoid defending the arbitrary and capricious policies of your preferred candidate? Do you support his desire to prohibit all urban and suburban citizens from owning semi-automatic firearms? That's a "yes" or "no" question by the way. He also wants to continue to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate people for victimless activities he has arbitrarily and capriciously defined as "crimes" without any supporting evidence that will withstand critical scrutiny. The questions are about liberty and personal freedom and whether someone (especially as a potential candidate) supports individual freedom or advocates for statist authoritarian government control/prohibition. Go ahead, support him, give him your money (and your semi-autos unless you live in the requisite low density area), but if you present half-truths and cherry pick his statements don't expect everyone to be fooled. Well, I take that back... you CAN expect that, or whatever else you'd like.

Of course I do not agree with infringement of 2nd amendment rights.  I will take a look at the Glenn Beck interview you shared as I haven't seen it.

Well crap.  From his answers on the Glenn Beck interview, I wonder how much Ben Carson really knows about firearms. Like Dwela said, let's hope he can be convinced and educated that second amendment rights are non-negotiable.

March 2013 Interview with Glenn Beck


If not Ben Carson for the republican nomintee, who would be the better presidential candidate (pro 2a who has a good chance of defeating Hillary) for 2016?  Does Rand Paul have a good stance (seems like) and chance?

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/whos-running-for-president-in-2016/

I like Carson but as one person pointed out to me he doesn't have a history of political experience. Now perhaps this could be a good thing but I think it is something that will work against him, at least in the eyes of many voters. He has never served as an elected official IIRC so jumping straight into the present's position might be difficult. But arguably someone who has no political experience could still fulfill the role of the president.

.

I like Carson but as one person pointed out to me he doesn't have a history of political experience. Now perhaps this could be a good thing but I think it is something that will work against him, at least in the eyes of many voters. He has never served as an elected official IIRC so jumping straight into the present's position might be difficult. But arguably someone who has no political experience could still fulfill the role of the president.

I would argue that this is precisely what the country needs. Serving in our government was never meant to be a "career" as such. Career politicians are the problem, not the solution. They are not motivated by the needs of the country or its citizens, only the need to be reelected and enact laws that favor those that pay to keep them in office, thus ensuring they get "a slice of the pie".

Carson backtracked/revised his earlier statements (noted above) yesterday (11/20/14) in a phone press conference. Did he really misspeak in the earlier statement? Did he learn something since then? Is he saying what he thinks he needs to say in order to get elected (aka "being a politician")? Who knows?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-20/ben-carson-seeks-to-assure-supporters-hes-solid-on-guns

Ben Carson Seeks to Assure Supporters He's Solid on Guns

Excerpt:

“Perhaps I didn’t convey it appropriately,” he said. “I wanted to convey that, you know, I've lived in urban areas. I've worked in urban areas. I've seen a lot of carnage, and I'd prefer a situation where the kinds of weapons that create that kind of carnage don't fall to the hands of criminal elements or insane people. But that is secondary to the desire to always defend the Second Amendment.”

Carson said that “under no circumstances” would he “allow a bureaucrat to remove any law-abiding citizen's rights for any kind of weapon that they want to protect themselves.”

If he were in a position of national leadership, Carson said he would seek to allow people to possess any kind of weapon they can legally buy, including “automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons.”

Ben Carson: Political phenomenon
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/ben-carson-gop-poll/index.html?hpt=po_c1

CNN Gives Ben Carson His First Real Media Vetting
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/cnn-gives-ben-carson-his-first-real-media-vetting-20141203