Ron Paul on Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

dasmi

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
2,783
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
Ron Paul on Guns, and an archive of his other speeches and writings.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul350.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes.

The gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it's a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last year's hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Gun sales have gone up.

Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.

The media has not been honest in reporting about guns, especially when it comes to statistics about law-abiding individuals who use firearms to prevent or deter crimes. Many of the "assault rifles" vilified by the press are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style fully automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market.

The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.

Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best – and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms – is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond.

November 7, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
 
Individual liberty is today's freak show.......its to bad....

Yeah, marching to the beat of a different drummer is ok so long as it's a liberal drummer. Be a real individual and watch how quickly the rest turn on you...
 
I believe this is exactly why Ron Paul doesn't get any press. If you don't think the media is in on the big conspiracy you all need to read The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline, By James Perloff. I believe especially the so-called conservatives on the radio namely Mr Limbaugh and Mr. Hannity are part of it. Who else to dumb down the masses then someone you lets you think they're on your side. They both go on and on about the GOP needing to get back to it's Conservative roots but give no one like Mr. Paul the time of day.
 
Let's take back our government and do the work necessary to get Dr. Paul elected in 2008. How can anyone on this list not support this guy?
 
When gun manufacturers were seeking immunity from lawsuits (which did become law), Mr Paul was on the same side as Ted Kennedy, Hilliary Clinton, Chuck Schummer, and other liberals opposing the bill.
 
. . . take back our government . . .

I'm going to order a copy of a book by that title: Take Back Your Government
0671721577.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

I have some reason to believe that, as anachronistic as his methods may be (the book, originally published in 1992, was drafted many years before), the essense of his thinking will be useful today.

Pournell's pessimistic introduction notwithstanding, I think there is a way to regain control of the political process.

It happens that I have some personal experience with "obsolete" books having a stunning impact on real-life procedures and outcomes. I definitely want to see what the grand old man of sci-fi has to say on this.
 
He is completely, 100% opposed to the war in Iraq. That'll cost him big time in Replublican voters.

When gun manufacturers were seeking immunity from lawsuits (which did become law), Mr Paul was on the same side as Ted Kennedy, Hilliary Clinton, Chuck Schummer, and other liberals opposing the bill.

Gotta agree with his reasoning. The bill was unnecessary, common sense proves it.

I am and have always voted Republican. I will vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

As Senator Bob Smith R-NH stated when he ran for president on his own. "I did not leave the Republican Party, it left me" this is absolutely how I feel.
 
While I understand Mr Paul's reasoning, the cold reality is the opposition and the courts are not playing by the same rules. It's naive to think the courts and congress are going to turn the clock back to the ideals that the constitution was based on. Unfortunately, to win in todays legal climate we are forced to use tactics equivilant to the opposition.

It would have only been a matter of time before gun manufacturers began running out of money to fight these suits or put them out of business. Something had to be done, and quick. What this bill did was no different than the protection given to Insurance Companies back in the 1940's. It may not be the ideal alternative, but it stopped the big city mayors and their lawsuits.
 
We can all sit here and go "Ra! Ra!" for Dr. Paul, but that is not going to accomplish anything useful. If we want a Libertarian President, we need to pound the pavement and get the word out that this guy is out there an a genuine alternative to the other candidates. I went to the 2008 Ron Paul Presidential Exploratory Committee website and sent an e-mail offering to volunteer. He may be a long shot, but he's a no-shot if people who share his beliefs sit on the sidelines and watch.
 
I went to the 2008 Ron Paul Presidential Exploratory Committee website and sent an e-mail offering to volunteer. He may be a long shot, but he's a no-shot if people who share his beliefs sit on the sidelines and watch.
Yeppers, which this supporter is not doing (sitting on the sidelines that is). I've long respected Dr. Paul for his views and commitment to his principles. My dilemma comes to who do I throw my support and efforts behind in the primaries? Paul or Tancredo?
 
Ron Paul did the right thing in voting against that immunity bill. It was unconstitutional and it should have been shot down. If we accept that it is acceptable to violate the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the gun dealers and manufactures, then it only makes it easier to accept that it's acceptable to violate our constitutional rights. Instead of shooting down these lawsuits as the clear infringement they are to the people, elements within the gun culture and the government used them as an excuse to further erode the very law that protects our rights.

It's similar to the reasoning for passing other unconstitutional arms infringements (inappropriately called "gun control"). First, government fails in its duty. They allow violent criminals to prey upon innocent citizens. Then, they use the rise in crime to further erode our right to bear arms by stating that they need to be made illegal so they can throw the violent criminals in jail. Problem is they don't need "gun laws" to do that, they just need to do prosecute them for their crimes.
 
Tinygnat, you got a reason?

I think Paul might have a decent shot if word can get out about him. He has ideas that appeal to more than the party line conservatives and gun culture.
 
He is completely, 100% opposed to the war in Iraq. That'll cost him big time in Replublican voters.

I don't have a problem with the fact that he opposes it, as long as he sees the need for victory now that we are involved.

FWIW, I'm becoming convinced that Iraq is a huge waste of time and that we should've just gone straight to Iran which was the point of this whole thing.

Oh well, 20/20 hindsight I suppose, at the time it looked like we'd be a lot further along by now.
 
Ron Paul is against the war because he feels it will harm our civil liberties at home, and make people angry at us abroad.

He wants the US to return to a policy of non-preemptive wars. And, he begged the Congress to atleast officially declare war on Iraq, which we did not do. Afterwards he said the war is unconstitutional. And, he is quite correct. The war is unconstitutional. One can argue whether it is a good idea or not, but it definitely is not Constitutional.

He is the man I will vote for in the primaries if I get the chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top