If this is true, he will also say or do anything to get RE-elected. Which means toeing the NRA line. I don't think he's a dangerous liberal gun grabber. I think he's an ambivalent inconsistent gun neglecter. He's a 'C', not an 'F'. Again, Carolyn McCarthy is an 'F'. (I give Obama a 'D'. He has 'F' aspirations, but he held off on pursuing them.)
Look at it this way. Even if Ron Paul is every bit as noble as you think he is, it's not like he can come into office and just penstroke everything he wants to. He has a limited amount of executive authority and political capital, just like Obama does. He can re-staff BATFE, veto new gun laws, and pick good court nominations. There is probably little discernible difference between what Romney will be forced to do, and what Ron Paul is actually ABLE to do in the same situation as far as RKBA is concerned. It is absolutely ABSURD to do anything to risk letting Obama get re-elected because you want the 90% candidate instead of the 80% one. And I think if Ron Paul was so absolutely principled as people seem to think he is, he wouldn't have run as a republican for congress, he would have stayed libertarian. So why did he switch? Because he understands perfectly well that you have ZERO influence if you don't win.