Dr. Ben Carson’s brilliance is beyond debate. However, there is a definite reason why I would trust the famed neurosurgeon to operate on my child’s brain and not entrust him with the Oval Office.
Though he possesses a brilliant scientific mind, Dr. Carson’s political moves seem to be derived with a dearth of coherentness to the point that I am left to conclude that he merely picks his political positions out of a hat or spins a wheel each morning to decide what he will believe that day.
Truly, politically speaking, Dr. Carson appears a few cards short of a full deck.
The former presidential candidate has taken to acting quite bizarrely. During the presidential race, he offered the impression that he was suspending his race but, instead, ended up claiming that he was leaving before the New Hampshire primary to grab a change of clothes at his home in Florida.
After the race, he embraced Donald Trump, a man who had baselessly smeared Carson as a pedophile.
Since then, he has attempted to defend Trump in various ways and even compared the RNC delegate rules to Jim Crow laws in a bizarre interview.
Now, the former presidential candidate has declared that it is time to “put on the table” a discussion on whether or not we actually need the Second Amendment.
On Thursday, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell questioned Carson about the Democrat-led temper tantrum regarding guns and the Second Amendment. Carson admitted that the lawmakers waging the sit-in on the House floor believed that they were right, but that Second Amendment supporters believed themselves to be right as well.
“That’s why we need to get back to a point of having civil discussions,” Carson began. “Let’s put on the table: what is the reason for the Second Amendment? And is there a reason that we need to change those things right now? And let’s put the data on the table and let’s talk about it like intelligent rather than getting in our respective corners and hurling insults. We’ll never solve anything that way.”
It is true that government functions best when partisanship is low and we’re willing to have an open discussion regarding facts.
However, on the issue of the Second Amendment, there can be no “give and take” on the issue. So long as a single criminal owns a firearm, the issue of individual firearm ownership must be defined as a human right. So long as a single agent of the government has access to a firearm, the issue of individual firearm ownership must be regarded as an uninfringeable constitutional right.
There are a great many things up for discussion. Let’s discuss the pros and cons of tax reforms. Let’s discuss the ins and out of foreign policy imperatives.
What we cannot open-up for debate, however, is a discussion on whether or not we should abridge our basic human freedoms.
Should we open a dialogue on whether or not we need a free press? Should we open a dialogue on whether or not we should have an official state religion?
Similarly, we cannot have a discussion about limiting our most-important freedom and any who suggest otherwise should be regarded as an opponent of our Constitution, not a supporter of it.
Dr. Carson may be brilliant and a good, moral man, but he is also a bit unhinged and can never be trusted with the duty of protecting our sacred rights.