Congressman Ron Paul on the Second Amendment - Page 2

Congressman Ron Paul on the Second Amendment

This is a discussion on Congressman Ron Paul on the Second Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by P7fanatic Oh great, third party candidate. That's how we got stuck with 'slick willie'. The only candidate that has a spotless 2nd ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47

Thread: Congressman Ron Paul on the Second Amendment

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array walvord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    St. Charles County Missouri
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by P7fanatic View Post
    Oh great, third party candidate. That's how we got stuck with 'slick willie'.
    The only candidate that has a spotless 2nd amendment record is Ron Paul. None of the other Republican candidates can say that and if you look back at their records they are staunchly anti-2nd amendment. They are changing their colors now just to get your vote. Don't believe them. Go by what they have done in the past, not what they say now. None of them will be 100% of what we each individually want or look for in a candidate.
    The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
    - Winston Churchill
    Endowment Life Member - NRA
    Life Member - GOA
    Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
    U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by P7fanatic View Post
    Oh great, third party candidate. That's how we got stuck with 'slick willie'.
    Have you checked his popularity lately? He's won more of the Republican debates than anyone else, even with the "one-vote-per-person" systems put in place when he first started gaining momentum.

    The man has a very legitimate chance of winning the Republican party, if the delegates get behind him, and if chosen as the Republican nominee could soundly trounce Obama or Hillary (I don't see Richardson or any of the other Democrats being overly threatening). Every time he's been written off as a "lower tier" candidate so far he's done something incredible to prove he's not.

    This isn't an off-topic tirade, but keep this in mind folks: you live with who you vote for. If you have your hearts set on not voting for someone who supports whole-heartedly the Constitution (yes, especially the Second Amendment), then you have only yourselves to blame and no one else when the candidate you voted for acts against the Constitution. If you really want to protect your right to keep and bear arms, then do something about it. Vote accordingly.


    -B

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,133
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Have you checked his popularity lately? He's won more of the Republican debates than anyone else, even with the "one-vote-per-person" systems put in place when he first started gaining momentum.

    The man has a very legitimate chance of winning the Republican party, if the delegates get behind him, and if chosen as the Republican nominee could soundly trounce Obama or Hillary (I don't see Richardson or any of the other Democrats being overly threatening). Every time he's been written off as a "lower tier" candidate so far he's done something incredible to prove he's not.

    This isn't an off-topic tirade, but keep this in mind folks: you live with who you vote for. If you have your hearts set on not voting for someone who supports whole-heartedly the Constitution (yes, especially the Second Amendment), then you have only yourselves to blame and no one else when the candidate you voted for acts against the Constitution. If you really want to protect your right to keep and bear arms, then do something about it. Vote accordingly.


    -B
    +1

    I like Ron Paul, alot. My vote will either go to him or Fred. It will all depend on who has the most realistic chance of being elected of the witch or the camouflaged radical Islamist (Hillary and Obama)
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array sheepdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    693
    The man has a very legitimate chance of winning the Republican party, if the delegates get behind him, and if chosen as the Republican nominee
    And if ifs and wishes were candies and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas (Tom Landry, I think). He's about as electable as Osama Bin Laden. I'd hold my nose and vote for Rudy just because his economic policy wouldn't send the country into a socialist tailspin. Owning guns isn't that important if you have to sell them to buy food and a vote for Ron Paul is just a vote for Hillary, let's face it.
    I'm not thrilled with Rudy, but he is the least offensive/viable Republican AT THIS TIME. If Fred Thompson runs out of gas (and I think he might), maybe a Guliani/Huckabee ticket?
    What Would Gumby Do?

  5. #20
    Senior Member Array Duisburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duisburg, Germany
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant Mac View Post
    Even with that, though, I believe that IN THE LONG TERM, his stances are absolutely the best we have to choose from. Much of our troubles, or at least the EXCUSES for our troubles, came from precisely the sort of global intervention that the founding fathers warned against.I do not believe that Paul would be weak when it comes to terrorist attacks (or even planned terrorist attacks) against the United States. I do believe that he would go to the Congress and ask for a Declaration of War. He did that prior to our going into Iraq.

    Paul is a libertarian, and the linchpin of the libertarian philosophy is what's known as either the Non Aggression Principle or the Zero Aggression Principle, which states that:

    "No one has the right to INITIATE aggression against another, nor to advocate or delegate its INITIATION."

    Note that this places no limits whatsoever on DEFENSE, or even RETALIATION.

    Had Ron Paul been the President on 9/11/01, we might well have seen a mushroom cloud over the glowing crater that USED to be Kabul before the end of the month.

    Well Ron Paul also preaches constitutional fundamentalism which does not interpret anything, it was outright said by our forefathers that we were not to get into any entangeling alliances. What that means in today's terms means that we let Israel all to itself being the sole nuclear source in the middle east, third largest army in the world and the displacers of a people who have lived there for 2000 years. AIPAC and ZOA won't go for that or for him and as much as I love Ron Paul he does not stand a chance against Zionists. Zionism is not Judeaism
    I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by sheepdog View Post
    And if ifs and wishes were candies and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas (Tom Landry, I think). He's about as electable as Osama Bin Laden. I'd hold my nose and vote for Rudy just because his economic policy wouldn't send the country into a socialist tailspin. Owning guns isn't that important if you have to sell them to buy food and a vote for Ron Paul is just a vote for Hillary, let's face it.
    I'm not thrilled with Rudy, but he is the least offensive/viable Republican AT THIS TIME. If Fred Thompson runs out of gas (and I think he might), maybe a Guliani/Huckabee ticket?
    Are we still talking about the same congressman? If so, please keep this on-topic as much as possible, I don't want this thread closed early.

    A candidate is only as "electable" is you, the voter, make him or her. If he's not "electable", how do you explain his success thus far? If he's not "electable," why does the news media joke about its own intentional blackout of this particular candidate? He makes the news fairly regularly now (I've many links to support that, if you wish), and most importantly to the discussion he is dead consistent in all of his views, especially support of the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution.

    So I ask you sir, what is "electable"? What is "viable"? And I mean that honestly, because I don't see how you can shut out a good candidate for one you KNOW will not protect the Constitution and the People. Something must be lost in translation here.


    Duisburg, remember the other hot-button issue of religious folk though: abortion. Even though Dr. Paul is voting out of Constitutionality and not religion, he does hold a right-to-life position and wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade for technical reasons (Judicial activism at its finest, and something that probably should never have been decided at the federal level), and that has earned him a LOT of support from various religious groups.

    I can't say I'm religious enough to know how strongly the Israel thing would effect folks though. I for one see Israel kicking butt and taking names whenever pushed to action, so I have no illusions about how much they "need" our help.


    -B

  7. #22
    Senior Member Array Duisburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duisburg, Germany
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post

    abortion. Even though Dr. Paul is voting out of Constitutionality and not religion, he does hold a right-to-life position and wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade for technical reasons (Judicial activism at its finest, and something that probably should never have been decided at the federal level), and that has earned him a LOT of support from various religious groups.

    I can't say I'm religious enough to know how strongly the Israel thing would effect folks though. I for one see Israel kicking butt and taking names whenever pushed to action, so I have no illusions about how much they "need" our help.


    -B
    Yeah, I never really have seen Israel being the under dog as it is surrounded by third world countries all of which have piddelly wink militaries. Remember the "Elite Republican Guard" Saddam was fabled to have had in 1991?

    Abortion is one place that I do not agree with Ron Paul on, and the ONLY thing really. I am morally against abortion and would choose against it in a personal situation (which would not be my decision, rather the woman's) but I would not vote to outlaw abortion for reasons that not everyone shares my beliefs. Overall Ron Paul is the man who walks the walk, talks the talk, has a clean background, a 50 year marriage, is a doctor and who would look out for our interests here in America (shocking idea I know ).
    I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Duisburg View Post
    YAbortion is one place that I do not agree with Ron Paul on, and the ONLY thing really. I am morally against abortion and would choose against it in a personal situation (which would not be my decision, rather the woman's) but I would not vote to outlaw abortion for reasons that not everyone shares my beliefs. Overall Ron Paul is the man who walks the walk, talks the talk, has a clean background, a 50 year marriage, is a doctor and who would look out for our interests here in America (shocking idea I know ).
    To clarify: he's advocating a ban on abortion. He prefers life (look at what he did/does for a living when he's not in Congress) but this is a matter of constitutionality; he wants it to be a legal debate in a proper legal arena, which he believes to be at the State level and not the Federal level. His position is one that, yes, there will be inequalities state-by-state, over this and many other issues, but that's the whole point of having a Republic of States and not simply a representative democracy. The idea is that each state can conduct its business as it deems appropriate, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of its citizens. Texas may be against it, but New York may be for it, just like Texas may be for open carry but New York may be against it. You get the idea.

    Prior to 1934, there was no FEDERAL gun control legislation. State gun control legislation was actually somewhat common, but centered around two arguments: 1) concealed vs open carry, and 2) what weapons were suitable for "militia" purposes and thus what defined "arms" protected under the Second Amendment.

    I mention this because we're discussing a candidate who wants to back the Federal gov't out of our lives, and that will heavily influence how and what we can purchase as far as "arms" are concerned. It would be incremental and done in phases, but so must everything involving government bureaucracies.


    -B

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    Besides his "cut and run" on Muslims radicals...I have just seen a site that says he is one of the 9/11 "Truthers" who believe the WTC was OUR government. I could never support him. Clinton didn't get our guns in 8 years....I don't think Rudy will either.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array maclean3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    3,085
    I've done more reading on his positions now (thanks BAC). He makes a lot of good points and a lot of sense in his platforms: National Debt, Social Security, Illegal immigration, etc. but I'm concerned about his foreign policy stance.

    Support of Israel is a hot button topic to just about everyone, no matter which side of the fence you're on, so let's consider this: If one of our oldest allies were attacked, would he still advocate Isolationism? I'm talking about Great Britain, Canada, countries like that. Would he authorize support for our allies in their time of need or let them flounder as well? It's hard to know we could count on others coming to our aid if they know we wouldn't come to theirs.

    I'm not trying to pick him apart here because he sounds like a good overall choice for a candidate but he holds some ideals that could cost us dearly. Any thoughts on this?
    Jack

  11. #26
    New Member Array 1Coastie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NE Washington
    Posts
    9
    The more I learn of Ron Paul's stand, the more I like. He's the only one (Prez '08 hopeful) I know of with a strong A2 stance!

  12. #27
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Coastie View Post
    The more I learn of Ron Paul's stand, the more I like. He's the only one (Prez '08 hopeful) I know of with a strong A2 stance!
    Nope, Mike Huckabee has a strong 2A background as a lifelong hunter (which he openly states is not the purpose of the second amendment), life member of the NRA and was responsible for bring concealed carry permits to Arkansas. I believe he was also the first Governor to have a concealed carry permit. He's about as strong as you can get on 2A....
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit51 View Post
    Besides his "cut and run" on Muslims radicals...I have just seen a site that says he is one of the 9/11 "Truthers" who believe the WTC was OUR government. I could never support him. Clinton didn't get our guns in 8 years....I don't think Rudy will either.
    Gotta ask you for your sources. In every interview I've seen, he's flat said "they attacked us", but our foreign policies are why they bombed us. This would run very contrary to what he's said so often in the past, so I have to suspect it.


    maclean3, please remember that he is not advocating isolationism. Non-interventionism is a very different policy. Remember what "entangling alliances" did for the world in WWI and throughout most of the 20th century? If Great Britain were to be attacked, for example, Congress would be sought for approval in use of military force. If Congress said "No", then the military doesn't go. That simple. If they say "Yes", you go and kick butt, then come straight freakin' home.

    Continuing on this train of thought (forgive the off-topic), who's to say we would need to enlist the aid other countries? If we traded with everyone, and were friendly to everyone, consolidated our military power to within and around our own borders and actually gave Border Patrol the help they desperately need, can you imagine how much more secure our nation would be? Doing that and fixing the "dollar" (economy) and all of a sudden it's hard to imagine A) someone wanting to attack us on a large scale, B) someone being successful on attacking us on a large scale, and C) someone not coming to our aid should such a dire crisis occur.

    Those aren't unrealistic hypotheticals, either. (I know that's not a word, just roll with it.)


    Bumper, thanks for the info. I am in dire need of catching up on him, Tancredo, and the other Republican candidates; the Democratic candidates all sound effectively the same and have effectively the same aims (especially with regards to the Second Amendment).


    -B
    Last edited by BAC; November 11th, 2007 at 04:23 AM. Reason: "bombed" should have been "attacked"

  14. #29
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit51 View Post
    Besides his "cut and run" on Muslims radicals...I have just seen a site that says he is one of the 9/11 "Truthers" who believe the WTC was OUR government. I could never support him. Clinton didn't get our guns in 8 years....I don't think Rudy will either.
    Paul is not himself a "Truther". He simply does not ridicule those who speak to him about their own suspicions.

    ....and while Clinton didn't "get" our guns, he sure kept us from "getting" quite a number of Evil Black Rifles throughout most of his reign of terror, and from "getting" magazines that held more than 10 rounds.

    Mind you, there was a perversely amusing unintended consequence of the latter - a fast-growth industry of compact, highly concealable 10-round pistols.

  15. #30
    Member Array joffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    165
    Paul was actually asked directly if he agreed with the '9/11 truther' movement, in which many admire him -- and he said no. It's on youtube.

    And he's not exactly known to lie when he says something.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: ‘2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 05:35 PM
  2. I contacted my congressman, now what?
    By jimtem in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 5th, 2010, 08:20 PM
  3. how awesome is my congressman??!?!!
    By jumbo72 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 30th, 2009, 09:56 PM
  4. Letter to my congressman
    By CT-Mike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: December 12th, 2007, 04:20 PM
  5. Congressman Ron Paul announcement
    By H. Lee in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: March 15th, 2007, 01:21 AM

Search tags for this page

abortion

,

restoring the second amendment ron paul

,

ron paul, congressman, second amendment

Click on a term to search for related topics.