Ben Carson Just Said The Dumbest Thing About The Second Amendment
Dr. Ben Carson just made a comment about the Second Amendment that is quite bizarre and stupid.
In an interview on MSNBC, Carson was asked to comment on the Democrats' petty gun control sit-in. Carson gave the most Captain Obvious response ever.
"I think the people who are protesting certainly feel that they are absolutely, 100 percent right," Carson said. "But of course the people on the other side feel that they’re 100 percent right too. That’s why we need to get back to a point of having civil discussion."
That's when Carson moved toward his inane comments on the Second Amendment.
"Let’s put on the table — what is the reason for the Second Amendment?" Carson continued. "And, is there a reason that we need to change those things right now? Let’s put the data on the table and let’s talk about it like intelligent people rather than getting in our respective corners and hurling insults. We’ll never solve anything that way."
Actually, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the populace from an all-powerful centralized government. Carson knows this; he himself has argued this in the past.
Back in April 2015, Carson said in an interview with Breitbart, "The Second Amendment is incredibly important for a couple of reasons. Number one, our Founders felt that our nation, if ever invaded by outside forces, would be much stronger if the people could help repel those forces. Number two, and perhaps even more importantly, is if the government–our own government–ever became tyrannical, and wanted to dominate the people, the Second Amendment guarantees the people the means whereby to defend themselves."
Carson expanded on this later in the interview:
The real purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to be able to protect themselves against an overly aggressive government. In order to do that, they need to have any kind of weapon that they may have, legally. And that includes semiautomatic weapons.
So, if the source that is trying to dominate you has those weapons, but you don’t have them–if all you have are pea-shooters–then your defense of yourself is not going to be very effective.
Around six months later, Carson had this exchange with CBS host John Dickerson on Face the Nation:
“I’m talking about is the reason that we have a Second Amendment. This is a book about the Constitution, and the Second Amendment is part of it it’s there for the reasons that I stated in the book. In case of invasion by foreign power, the people would be able to aid the military, and also if we have a time when we have the wrong people in office, and they want to dominate the people, the people will be able to defend themselves. As Daniel Webster eloquently said, ‘the people of America will never suffer under tyranny because they’re armed.'”
Host host John Dickerson asked, “In your book you say you were once a supporter of a ban on assault weapons and armor piercing bullets, but then you say in the book, you recognize the intent of the Second Amendment which is to protect the freedom of the people from an aggressive government. It sounds like the idea of an overly aggressive government that would require that kind of resistance is a clear and present danger. Do you see it that today?”
Carson said, “I didn’t say it was going on right now. I think the implication is quite clear that it is something that can happen, and I listed a number of countries where that happened. The fact of the matter is, if you go to those countries well before it happened and you asked the people if that’s going to happen in their country, they would say, no, it wouldn’t happen here.”
It's hard to imagine that Carson didn't just forget this less than a year later, so why would he be willing to put the right of the citizenry to defend themselves from a tyrannical government "on the table?" Would he be willing to put the First Amendment and the freedoms of speech, press and religion on the top? Would he put the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment on the table as well?
Carson should know better than to suggest putting the Second Amendment on the table.