PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on the 2nd Amendment


buff_01
09-25-2007, 8:33 AM
"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."

http://www.sierratimes.com/06/11/07/Paul.htm

Dr. Paul has been endorsed by the Gun Owners of America, the no-compromise gun lobby. http://www.gunowners.org/

buff_01
09-25-2007, 10:58 PM
I can't be the only one here who broke out into a huge grin when I read this. Hearing these words from a major candidate is almost beyond belief!

Liberty1
09-26-2007, 12:06 PM
I can't be the only one here who broke out into a huge grin when I read this. Hearing these words from a major candidate is almost beyond belief!


Thank you for the quote. Everyone here generally knows where Dr. Paul stands on 2A issues. He is being discussed a lot here. Many here support him and many others do not, mostly over other issues like foreign policy.

buff_01
09-26-2007, 2:31 PM
Thank you for the quote. Everyone here generally knows where Dr. Paul stands on 2A issues. He is being discussed a lot here. Many here support him and many others do not, mostly over other issues like foreign policy.

I know, there are plenty of people out there who trust George W Bush's opinions on foreign policy over that of the founding fathers. Hard to believe, but it's true. Must be all that "garbage in" every day from neocon shills like Rush and Hannity.

odysseus
09-26-2007, 3:09 PM
Definitively, without any doubt, there is no other candidate currently who supports and has supported the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA like Ron Paul. His following and longevity thusfar has surprised people, and other Repub candidates would be smart to voice their opinions in kind.

Liberty1
09-26-2007, 4:28 PM
RP - Integrity, Honesty & Entangling Alliences with No Industry or Special Intersts



Definitively, without any doubt, there is no other candidate currently who supports and has supported the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA like Ron Paul. His following and longevity thusfar has surprised people, and other Repub candidates would be smart to voice their opinions in kind.



What impresses me the most about RP is his integrity. He opposed the Lawful Commerce in Arms (anti-lawsuit) bill (even though it would help the firearms industry) not because he likes frivolous lawsuits or hate guns, but because he believes Congress did not have authority in the Constitution to even consider the bill. The NRA then lowered him to a "B" rating and gave an "A" to his Democratic opposition in his last race. RP still won by a 60% margin.

.

see:

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/11/fix-is-in-ron-paul-must-go.html

http://www.robbooth.net/nravsrp.shtml

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32236

added: Ron Paul's rural agricultural district in Texas sent him back to Congress for 10 terms even though he doesn't support agricultural subsidies. America owes those selfless voters a great debt for giving Ron Paul his platform from which to speak the truths about our Constitutional Republic for so many years.

Liberty1
09-26-2007, 8:46 PM
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/

The Second Amendment by Ron Paul

I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

*H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
*H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
*H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
*H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.


See Gunowners for Ron Paul for more political positions: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/

SemiAutoSam
09-26-2007, 8:53 PM
I want to see Ron Paul win the white house because of his views of the constitution and how government should be beholden to the constitution but it seems to me like others do not want their freedoms back bad enough to back Ron Paul.

Those are the people IMO that have not realised how much of our freedoms that the supposed government of and by and for the people has taken from us.

And when it comes down to the bottom line If they dont want their freedoms I mean all of their freedoms beyond only the 2nd Amendment then why should I worry about it. If they are happy with what Government lets them have let them have that and be happy with it.

carsonwales
09-26-2007, 9:08 PM
I can't be the only one here who broke out into a huge grin when I read this. Hearing these words from a major candidate is almost beyond belief!

I agree with your first part...but conceding that RP is a 'major' candidate is beyond a stretch....it borders on time travel and immaculate reciprocity....

RP is not a viable candidate....as laudable a choice he may be....

=================

See Wall

See writing on the wall

Read writing on the wall

Slam head on the wall in denial....

Wake up....

See the light....

SchooBaka
09-26-2007, 9:25 PM
IMHO
The most viable candidate, should be the one you agree with the most.
It takes you, me and everyone else to create a viable candidate.
I can't stand the idea of voteing for the lesser of two evils, just to defeat the one you dislike most.
There's very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats these day's when I comes to real issues.
All they do is pass the baton and continue on down the path to destruction.
That's why I find Ron Paul such a breath of fresh air.
The Republicans and Democrats own the media during elections. Have you seen anything from 3rd party candidates yet?

buff_01
09-27-2007, 8:21 AM
I agree with your first part...but conceding that RP is a 'major' candidate is beyond a stretch....it borders on time travel and immaculate reciprocity....

RP is not a viable candidate....as laudable a choice he may be....

=================

See Wall

See writing on the wall

Read writing on the wall

Slam head on the wall in denial....

Wake up....

See the light....

He has more "boots on the ground" than the rest combined. He has received more donations from average (non special-interest, non-rich) Americans than anyone else, and he has received more donations from Military families than any other candidate. He has also won every poll given after a debate, and these polls do not allow repeat voting. I would call someone with the above qualifications a major candidate, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WANTS ME TO BELIEVE.

Here's some history for you:

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2155/pollswk4.jpg

Buddydog
09-27-2007, 10:22 AM
I agree 100%!

Bud

SemiAutoSam
09-27-2007, 10:26 AM
I Like your Sig line.

And not to shock everyone but there is no war on terror its a load of Horse dung that has been fed to us to control us and change our way of life to be more subservient to an already controlling government.

I wish there were more that understood this and would try to do something about it.

But then we would be called subversive.

This is the ultimate reason we own firearms tirrany within our government.

Thanks

The War on Terror is nothing more than the War on our Freedom.
How many Personal Liberties have you lost since 09/11/2001?
Please, think before you vote!
Ron Paul 2008
www.ronpaul2008.com
This message brought to you by me, cause I give a damn!

Liberty1
09-29-2007, 12:22 AM
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Gun_Control.htm




Ron Paul: Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror


Q: You have said that the 9/11 attackers might have had second thoughts if they'd felt that some of the passengers aboard the airplanes might have been armed.

A: You're quoting me incorrectly. I said the responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the airline, not the government--and not the passengers. The airline's responsible for the aircraft and the passengers. If we wouldn't have been dependent on the federal government to set all the rules, which meant no guns & no resistance, then the terrorists may well have had second thoughts, because the airlines would have had the responsibility. But we assumed the government was going to take care of us. After 9/11, instead of moving toward the direction of personal responsibility & private property & 2nd amendment, we moved in the opposite direction. We turned it over to the federal government. Private industry protects their property all the time. But here is one example when the federal government was involved and they messed it up.

Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007



Ron Paul Opposes the DC Gun Ban; it's not just a "collective right"

An appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the DC's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.

When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so. The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed.

Gun control makes people demonstrably less safe--as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to self-defense has been most severely curtailed.

Source: Weekly column, "Texas Straight Talk" Mar 12, 2007

buff_01
09-30-2007, 2:13 AM
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/

Ron Paul: The Pro-Second Amendment Republican Candidate for President
As a United States Congressman,
Dr. Paul has:

If elected president,
Dr. Paul will:
Restore the Second Amendment

Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans, WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT
Press Congress and the Supreme Court to preserve American citizen's Second Amendment rights

"Gun Free Zones"

Introduced legislation to REPEAL the so-called "Gun Free Zone" victim disarmament law of 1990


National Parks Gun Ban

Overturn the unconstitutional ban on carrying guns for self-defense in our National Parks

"Instant Check"

Introduced legislation to REPEAL the 1993 National "Instant Background Check" Gun Owner Registration Bill


Exercising Your Constitutional Rights

Veto ANY piece of legislation abridging our Constitutional Right to bear arms

UN Gun Grab

Authored legislation to stop taxpayer funds from going to the anti-gun United Nations


Tax Dollars to UN

Stop YOUR TAX DOLLARS from going to fund anti-gun United Nations activities

Private Gun Sales

Opposed ALL gun control schemes that would register private sales and mandate government "Lock-Up Your Safety Devices


Mandated Trigger Locks

Veto ANY legislation mandating trigger locks to prevent you from maintaining a firearm for home and self-defense



Veterans Rights

Opposed H.R. 2640 that would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to BAN U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from EVER owning a gun


Assault Weapon Ban

Veto ANY legislation banning semi-automatic firearms

The choice is clear: Vote Ron Paul for President

Ron Paul's Pro-Gun Legislation

H.R. 1096 (Paul): This bill would (1) repeal the Brady law and Instantcheck Gun Owner registration system; (2) repeal federal provisions discriminating against firearms which the government determines to have no "sporting purpose," and (3) repeal the requirement that trigger locks be purchased by anyone purchasing a handgun from a dealer.

H.R. 1897 (Paul): This bill would prohibit any federal regulation banning the possession or carrying of a firearm based in whole or in part on the fact that the possession or carrying occurs within a national park.

KenpoProfessor
09-30-2007, 5:09 AM
When the whackjobs and extremists quit calling Ron Paul the whackjob and extremist, Ron will be our next President.

He is, by far, the most qualified in views to take the position, and I can't understand how anyone can't see that. Ron Paul stands for freedom we haven't seen since the 60's, but with a modern attitude. And other than being pro-life and anti-gay marriage (cuz I certainly won't vote for those crazy lib Demos that agree with that), I can't see any other reasons why I shouldn't vote for him as the other Repubs have the same view.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

DedEye
09-30-2007, 6:31 AM
I want to see Ron Paul win the white house because of his views of the constitution and how government should be beholden to the constitution but it seems to me like others do not want their freedoms back bad enough to back Ron Paul.

Those are the people IMO that have not realised how much of our freedoms that the supposed government of and by and for the people has taken from us.

And when it comes down to the bottom line If they dont want their freedoms I mean all of their freedoms beyond only the 2nd Amendment then why should I worry about it. If they are happy with what Government lets them have let them have that and be happy with it.

This hits on a problem I have with Ron Paul. He's a bit of a hypocrite in my mind as he portrays himself as a Libertarian and opposes government intrusion in private affairs, then wants to ban gay marriage and abortion. Personally (and I know this view isn't widely shared on this forum), abortion is a privacy rights issue. More significantly, Paul's stance on gay marriage and desire for government intervention to prohibit it strikes me as hypocritical of someone who wants to reduce the size and role of government in people's lives.

fatirishman
09-30-2007, 8:39 AM
Well, I think abortion is a fair area to give someone a pass on (unless, obviously, it is your main issue), as there really are principled people on both sides (not to say the major orgs, etc. are principled, but there are people who are). As for the gay marriage thing, Paul's position is that the federal government should have nothing to do with it, one way or the other (he has voted against constitutional amendments and whatnot); he has also stated his personal opinion that no one should need to go to the government to get married - which isn't exactly an aggressive "defense of traditional marriage" position. (I will admit, though, that his general position of LGBT issues is somewhat to the right of most libertarians, and I do wish he were a little better on that.) Personally, though, and this will probably be even less popular on this list, I find his position on immigration really bothersome. It seems to me that if people want to move, they should be able to - whether or not some government gives them "permission". Still, this is the first time in my adult lifetime that I can truly say I support a major party candidate with very few reservations - he is easily 10 times better than Pat Buchanan was, and Pat was actually worth registering republican just to vote for (not that it mattered in CA). All quibbles aside, then, of course Ron Paul is the best candidate for president.

CavTrooper
09-30-2007, 9:06 AM
If elected president, Dr. Paul will:
Restore the Second Amendment

Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans, WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT



So, do you suppose that means that suppressors and full auto firearms will then be cash and carry items? :D That would be nice.

How about violent felons, will they be able to purchase firearms at the end of thier prision sentence for violent crimes involving guns? That wouldnt be so nice.

Kestryll
09-30-2007, 9:32 AM
Quick question for those who say Ron Paul is the only one who can save America.

How is he going to do this?

If he is as much the 'outsider' to the Republican Party as claimed and they 'want to stop him' as claimed what would make them willing to work with him in a Congressional/Presidential relationship?
Wouldn't their alleged efforts to 'stop him' require them to oppose him and the legislation he would want to push through?

And the Democratic Party would definitely not be willing to help further his goals either. I'd guess their opposition would be considered a given.

So how are these massive changes and this complete restructuring of the Government suppose to happen?
I'm curious because I see a lot of references to Ron Paul saving us all but no logistics of how it will happen in the real world of American politics and government.

Piper
09-30-2007, 9:43 AM
I think Ted Nugent should run for President.

VegasND
09-30-2007, 9:54 AM
Kestryll:
Reasonable questions and comments. I would think you'd be better at this blog thing (you know, hyperbole and extremely shrill misinformation)

Ron Paul cannot save America. America must save itself. Electing people who share Paul's desire to reinstate the constitution must become the aim of voters to 'save' this nation. Picking an issue where one feels the Constitution is inadequate (e.g. 'abortion must be federally protected, gay marriage must be mandated by federal amendment') misses the point. If the government stays out of your business such issues become moot.

You marry who you please, record it in a way you wish, and announce it to those you care about. The county recorder stays out of it. The state does not issue a license to make it legal. And, those who disagree with your choice have no legal standing to bother you. What goes on between you and your doctor is no business of others. If you and your doctor disagree, go get a different doctor.

People get the quality of government they choose. Americans have been choosing low quality for some time. Correcting the current morass, just like making it, will take time.


Quick question for those who say Ron Paul is the only one who can save America.

How is he going to do this?

If he is as much the 'outsider' to the Republican Party as claimed and they 'want to stop him' as claimed what would make them willing to work with him in a Congressional/Presidential relationship?
Wouldn't their alleged efforts to 'stop him' require them to oppose him and the legislation he would want to push through?

And the Democratic Party would definitely not be willing to help further his goals either. I'd guess their opposition would be considered a given.

So how are these massive changes and this complete restructuring of the Government suppose to happen?
I'm curious because I see a lot of references to Ron Paul saving us all but no logistics of how it will happen in the real world of American politics and government.

buff_01
09-30-2007, 7:23 PM
This hits on a problem I have with Ron Paul. He's a bit of a hypocrite in my mind as he portrays himself as a Libertarian and opposes government intrusion in private affairs, then wants to ban gay marriage and abortion. Personally (and I know this view isn't widely shared on this forum), abortion is a privacy rights issue. More significantly, Paul's stance on gay marriage and desire for government intervention to prohibit it strikes me as hypocritical of someone who wants to reduce the size and role of government in people's lives.

I'll explain it again:

Ron's abortion view is that the federal government should not be involved. There is no power granted to the federal government to regulate abortion, therefore it is a states issue. This is entirely consistent with his other views.

His view on marriage is similar: the federal government should not regulate marriage, which is simply a contract between two people.

To the guy that was asking about full autos with flash supressors: I'm sure he would not support banning them.

Felons lose many of their their civil rights, because they have broken the law. So, it would still be illegal to sell them firearms. AFAIK.

SemiAutoSam
09-30-2007, 7:44 PM
I honestly dont mean to correct but this is not 100% accurate.

I thought you would want to know.

http://www.mainemediaresources.com/mpl_marriage.htm

A marriage license is a three-party contract between the man, woman, and the State known as an adhesion contract. An adhesion contract is one which is extremely one-sided, grossly favoring the State. From weakness in bargaining position, ignorance, or indifference, couples are willing to enter into the marriage transaction controlled by this lopsided legal document.

When a couple applies for a license from the State to marry, they are actually asking for permission to engage in the “unlawful” activity of marriage (License - a revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful - Black’s Law 7th ed). Because the State can regulate that which it licenses, by entering into a State-sanctioned franchise (marriage) as a married couple, a couple forfeits their rights to a private, sovereign marriage and any ownership/control of their children or property; as a result of the marriage license.


His view on marriage is similar: the federal government should not regulate marriage, which is simply a contract between two people..

buff_01
09-30-2007, 7:58 PM
If you look at the Constitution, which grants authorities to the Federal Government, marriage is not included. Thus, the FEDERAL govt. has no right to regulate this.

The States can, however, choose to regulate if they want to.

SemiAutoSam
09-30-2007, 8:05 PM
If this reply is to me I corrected my post above to make it easier to understand what I was getting at.

Thanks.

If you look at the Constitution, which grants authorities to the Federal Government, marriage is not included. Thus, the FEDERAL govt. has no right to regulate this.

The States can, however, choose to regulate if they want to.