Herman Cain

[jnevis]

Back to the OP:
What is Cain's opinion on 2d Amendment?
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Cain/Gun-Control.php
The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right?
 
Cain is a firm supporter of the Second Amendment.
“I support the Second Amendment … I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support … onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment …”
 June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer
  Sounds good for a sound bite.

Legislations
 Cain’s view on the Second Amendment is completely at odds with the mainstream conservative Republican position, in that, Cain favors state level gun control legislations..
 
“… yes, that (gun legislations) should be a state’s decision.”
 June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
A little concerning from a National CCW reciprocity stand point but would be less of a chance of a national AWB among other things.

[tombogan03884]

Back to the OP:
What is Cain's opinion on 2d Amendment?
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Cain/Gun-Control.php
The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right?
 
Cain is a firm supporter of the Second Amendment.
“I support the Second Amendment … I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support … onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment …”
 June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer
  Sounds good for a sound bite.

Legislations
 Cain’s view on the Second Amendment is completely at odds with the mainstream conservative Republican position, in that, Cain favors state level gun control legislations..
 
“… yes, that (gun legislations) should be a state’s decision.”
 June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
A little concerning from a National CCW reciprocity stand point but would be less of a chance of a national AWB among other things.

That is the one objection I have to Cain, Freedom of speech, Voting rights, Slavery, etc. none of the other amendments are state decisions.
In fact several were passed specifically to take the matter out of the states hands, and have been used to force states to do things like segregation that they did not want to do.

[twyacht]

I posted a Cain "clip", on the Politics Thread, and did present it as a "soundbite" approach to appease the lawful gun owners of this Country, as well as a "diluted, watered down leave it up to the States to decide"..

The question I have is Legislation vs. Regulation.

As we found in McDonald, after Heller, is Ill, CA, MA, NJ, and DC, can abide by Federal Legislation, but by local/state Regulation, can make it impossible, or a hindrance, too much trouble, too expensive, too many hurdles, get it registered, cops fire and keep a round "on file", keep it in your house, but don't defend yourself in your garage, as it's not your technical dwelling type BS.

Either way, Cain did not impress me with his position. And our MSM in the debates, asks BS questions, and allows all the candidates, to give BS answers.

Same with the Nat. Reciprocity Act. Why do I need another level of Fed. incompetence for a Constitutional Right? That is "supposed" to apply to ALL States in this Union?

IMHO, I don't think Cain is a threat to my firearms. But he won't be a proponent to lessen any State Regulating/Banning. or other BS either.

Like the Alabama immigration law,....the Feds incapability to enforce it's own laws, caused Alabama/Arizona, to enact their own...

Both are being sued, or appealed, and picked apart by the FED Court System.....

[Solus]

It will be a whole lot easier to tile Cain in the direction we want him to go, as he is leaning that way pretty much now, than tilt most anyone else that way.

[tombogan03884]

It will be a whole lot easier to tile Cain in the direction we want him to go, as he is leaning that way pretty much now, than tilt most anyone else that way.

I have to agree with Solus, Perry has done well with Texas, but Cain has twice taken failed business', which pretty much describes our economy, and turned them into money makers.
While Perry is solidly good on gun rights, Cain can be lead in the right direction, even more so since guns are not a big issue in this campaign while the economy is.
Romney would sign anything that got to his desk.

[Sponsor]

[billt]

End result is the same, one less dirtbag.

And it was the necessary and correct result. There are over 300,000,000 people in this country. How many are complaining about the death of Al Awlaki as being improper? That right there should tell you something. The 299,999,998 that aren't are not asleep at the switch. They're just not so good at connecting abstract dots to read, here come the black helicopters!

[billt]

It will be a whole lot easier to tile Cain in the direction we want him to go, as he is leaning that way pretty much now, than tilt most anyone else that way.

Pick up a 4 function calculator and figure out how much his stupid, ill conceived "9-9-9" plan is going to cost you, and you won't be walking away from Herman Cain, you'll be running away!

[jnevis]

   
Herman Cain admits ‘some people will pay more’ under 9-9-9
Published: 9:40 AM 10/16/2011 | Updated: 4:10 PM 10/16/2011
 By Alex Pappas--The Daily Caller

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain admitted Sunday that “some people” would pay more in taxes every year under his “9-9-9” tax reform plan.

“That’s right. Some people will pay more,” Cain told David Gregory of NBC’s Meet the Press. “But most people will pay less, that’s my argument.”

Cain’s plan throws out the current tax system by establishing a 9 percent corporate tax, a 9 percent income tax and a new 9 percent national sales tax. During a lengthy discussion with Gregory, Cain defended his plan from critics who say the plan will make lower income earners pay more.

Asked by Gregory who will pay more, Cain said, “The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods. That’s a big difference that doesn’t come out.”

Cain took issue though with Gregory saying “the reality of this plan: the wealthiest Americans would pay less, the poorest Americans and middle class would pay more.”

“I do dispute that,” Cain said. “You and others are making assumptions about what wealthy Americans will do with their money and you’re making assumptions about…the middle class and the poor. You can’t predict their behavior.”

“More people will pay less in taxes,” he said.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/16/herman-cain-admits-%e2%80%9csome-people-will-pay-more%e2%80%9d-under-9-9-9/

OK I'm having trouble making a whole lot of sense of the bolded part.  So if I buy from Goodwill, a pawn shop, or a used car lot I'm OK but if I buy anything new I pay more?  If that's the case, then TAB's comments about it hurting the small business owner is correct.  If I'm the owner of a gun shop, or any other small retail store, I have to pay all three tiers of the plan on everything, including my payroll, inventory, and profits.  So now I have to fire an employee to afford the tax increases, since I was just on the edge anyway.  How's that helping create jobs?  Since I might need a new car, I look at a used lot since I get a tax break instead of buying new.  New cars sales tank and the auto co's lay off more workers and/or send more jobs overseas to reduce costs. 

As for the second part, haven't we been complaining about BHO being out of touch with middle America?  Last time I checked there were multiple "indicators" that show how people spend money; housing starts, household goods sales, auto sales, and the like.  You can to some extent predict what peopl eare spending money on.  In a bad economy people save as much as they can to cover long term expenses.  Better economic conditions the "wealthy" (a nebulous definition, since according to some anyone making over $70K an year is wealthy) are more apt to use thier money to buy stuff or start a business.  Pretty predictable.

Maybe I misread it, it's been known to happen.

[billt]

Forget how they always try to translate the whole "Wealthy vs. Poor" argument, and examine the plan for what it is. It gives the government a whole new tax vehicle they do not have now. The ability to tax your spending as well as your income. We have people continually wanting, and whining for a smaller, less expensive government. How is it these same people can get behind a plan that opens the door for greater taxation of it's people from a perspective that now does not exist? It's just plain stupid.

Tax laws work for everyone, not just "the rich". These so called "flat taxes" are not all they are cracked up to be. "9-9-9" will hurt middle income people far more simply because they are required to spend a higher percentage of their income to exist in a civil society. Therefore they will be taxed on a higher percentage of their income overall when all is said and done. The average American spent more than they earned last year. Under Cain's plan they will be hit the hardest as opposed to a higher income person who invests more than they spend.

If you invest in tax deferred investments, and don't piss your money away under today's tax laws, you'll make out. Under Cain's plan you won't because everything will either change, or else be replaced. It is a case where simple isn't always "better". You have to think beyond your paycheck. As always it's not what you make, but rather what you do with it after you make it. With Cain it isn't going to matter much, because it will limit most, if not all your options.

[tombogan03884]

Pick up a 4 function calculator and figure out how much his stupid, ill conceived "9-9-9" plan is going to cost you, and you won't be walking away from Herman Cain, you'll be running away!

Got a better idea ?
Or are you happy to continue with the same old failed policies ?