The only gun control that Ron Paul can support

[rambone]

"Yes, we need gun control: We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then abolish the agencies!" - Ron Paul, 1997

Ron Paul is the most consistent politician in Washington. He's been preaching the same message for his whole career. An army of armed Federal bureaucrats is a threat to our liberty. And he thought things were bad back then...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoxUXeV2-ZA

 

[dead2rights]

I actually saw this when it first aired over my brothers, we were all cheering like at the end of a good movie!

 

[gunowner930]

Video must be a fake. Rush Limbaugh tells me that Ron Paul is a Democrat in disguise.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ron Paul loves him some gun control as long as the states or cities impose it.

So much for people stuck in New Jersey or California. I guess Ron Paul doesn't care for them?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ron Paul loves him some gun control as long as the states or cities impose it.

So much for people stuck in New Jersey or California. I guess Ron Paul doesn't care for them?

Are those people imprisoned there? Can they not choose to vacate places where their natural rights are disallowed under those documents with the color of local law? As I understand it, Dr. Paul does not love gun control, he simply does not think it is a matter for the fedgov to address. I hasten to add that my understanding might very well be incorrect, however.

All of that said, if he does not like NJ or CA...... CAN YOU BLAME HIM???

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ron Paul 2012: Liberty for Some!

 

[Chefcook]

Spoken like a true patriot. The way you can tell he is the real deal is even when his ideas do not seem popular he still does not change his stance, and his stance has been the same for decades, unwavering.

 

[teddy12b]

Ron Paul loves him some gun control as long as the states or cities impose it.

So much for people stuck in New Jersey or California. I guess Ron Paul doesn't care for them?

Ron Paul loves liberty and people peacefully deciding for themselves on how to live their life. I could give a damn if the people in nj, california, or wherever want state imposed gun control. If that's how they want to live that's fine. Living in Indiana I could care less how they live so long as it doesn't hurt me and mine. We have to allow people to make wrong choices. Let their crime rates soar and scratch their heads trying to figure out why. Just because we are a website of gun nerds doesn't give us to right to tell another state that should all be armed or carrying open in the streets trying to make a statement. To really want liberty means you have to allow everyone else theirs to make their own decisions. The states should be allowed to rule themselves.

 

[Destro]

Ron Paul loves liberty and people peacefully deciding for themselves on how to live their life. I could give a damn if the people in nj, california, or wherever want state imposed gun control. If that's how they want to live that's fine. Living in Indiana I could care less how they live so long as it doesn't hurt me and mine. We have to allow people to make wrong choices. Let their crime rates soar and scratch their heads trying to figure out why. Just because we are a website of gun nerds doesn't give us to right to tell another state that should all be armed or carrying open in the streets trying to make a statement. To really want liberty means you have to allow everyone else theirs to make their own decisions. The states should be allowed to rule themselves.

so the US constution only applies if you live in a state that follows it?

 

[Destro]

Ron Paul 2012: Liberty for Some!

I don't think we have to worry...he seems to try harder and harder every day to make himself unelectable. I once considered sending him some $$$...but calling for the dissolution of FEMA while a hurricane is bearing down the east coast = trying not to win.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

To really want liberty means you have to allow everyone else theirs to make their own decisions. The states should be allowed to rule themselves.

So, you as a Paul supporter, are against the Constitution? Maybe just the 14th Amendment? You wish to bring back the Articles of Confederation then?

The states be allowed to rule themselves? So, if Mississippi wants to bring back slavery that is just peachy with you and Ron Paul?

Is this not an admission that Ron Paul will not uphold and support the Constitution of the United States of America?

I could give a damn if the people in nj, california, or wherever want state imposed gun control.

What if your company transfers you to New Jersey? Is it tough Wookies for you?

There are Constitution zones and Constitution-free zones?

 

[teddy12b]

so the US constution only applies if you live in a state that follows it?

No. The US constitution says what it can and can't enforce on states. A state constitution should have the final say and if that state elects officials who make that law then we respect their wishes to be idiots.

 

[teddy12b]

So, you as a Paul supporter, are against the Constitution? Maybe just the 14th Amendment? You wish to bring back the Articles of Confederation then?

The states be allowed to rule themselves? So, if Mississippi wants to bring back slavery that is just peachy with you and Ron Paul?

Is this not an admission that Ron Paul will not uphold and support the Constitution of the United States of America?



What if your company transfers you to New Jersey? Is it tough Wookies for you?

There are Constitution zones and Constitution-free zones?

I'm not even going to respond to this. If you really want to take such a slanted look at the point I'm trying to get across then I'm not going to waste my time argueing about it if you're already too far gone. Why don't you and the rest of the neocons just declare war on the other states who have gun control and then you'll fix everything. That's really what you want.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The US constitution says what it can and can't enforce on states. A state constitution should have the final say and if that state elects officials who make that law then we respect their wishes to be idiots.

The US Constitution says that it can enforce a ban on slavery in the states. Would Ron Paul enforce this?

The US Constitution says that the Second Amendment applies to the States. Would Ron Paul permit New Jersey to disregard the Constitution's Second Amendment.

I'm not even going to respond to this.

Why won't Ron Paul voters stand and defend him? Why not?

Don't take your ball and go home.

It's just politics. I have a question, perhaps you can persuade me.

Why don't you and the rest of the neocons just declare war on the other states who have gun control and then you'll fix everything.

Ummm, not war but certainly legal means was brought to bring the Southern states to respect the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1870, 1871, 1875, federal troops in the South until 1877.

Today we have McDonald and soon much more.

Answer this, why should the states that have gun control not be warred upon? Is that the Constitutional function of the federal government to ensure a republican form of government? Is not the function of the federal government to ensure that the states respect the rights in the Bill of Rights?

Will Ron Paul ensure that the states have a republican form of government? Will Ron Paul ensure that the states respect the Bill of Rights? If not, why not? If not, why should someone who does not respect the Constitution be allowed to be President?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Kirk, I see the points you're making. The issue as I see it is not that RP would support this or that, it's that as a federal level officeholder, he doesn't view it as his job to enforce state-level laws, any more than it's Mitch Daniels' job to enforce Lafayette's smoking ban. There is no preemption for those types of laws, so for him to do so would be akin to "micro-managing". Personally, I do think that the states should look at the Constitution as the "floor". They may allow more, but not less than that document. I can wrap my head around federal-level (or Constitutional-level) enforcement that tells them, "You will comply with the agreement into which you entered." (in this case, "...shall not be infringed.") The unspoken "or else" portion of that demand is that the state will no longer be considered a part of our country; no highway funds, no federal offices, no medicare to the citizens, and the state folks have to come up with some way of keeping everyone happy... Obviously, these are only off-the-cuff examples of consequences.

There are no two ways about it: For this country to get back on track, back to the Founders' intent, we have some tough times ahead. Frankly, when the aid gets cut off and people have to learn to subsist on their own, without government nannying and sheltering, and when people are actually able to do so... those years are going to suck badly. There will be riots. There will be lawlessness. There will be disease. There may even be war(s). This time period is going to be very bleak, and there is no certainty that we'll ever get back to self-sufficiency. If we do, however, I think it will be worth it.

Lastly, again, I see where you're going. I do think it's the height of irony to accuse Dr. Paul of not respecting the Constitution, however. Or were you referring to our last several Presidents and the current occupant of the office?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Destro]

Kirk and I hardly ever agree...but man, people like teddy make me like Ron Paul less and less...

a state should not be allowed to restrict freedoms gar-on-teeed by the US constution. Period.

 

[teddy12b]

Kirk and I hardly ever agree...but man, people like teddy make me like Ron Paul less and less...

a state should not be allowed to restrict freedoms gar-on-teeed by the US constution. Period.

If you don't agree with me that's fine, but don't blaim RP for our disagreement. States have certain rights, and citizens also have rights. Some hoe or another this discussion has turned from me trying to explain RP's position on states rights into somehow I'm perceived as not wanting people in other states to be allowed their rights of owning guns. I must not have done a very good job of explaining my points so I'll try to stop doing a poor job while I still can.

Trust me when I say that I don't agree with any form of gun control or restriction. For the poor guys in those states they ultimately have to make a choice and a compromise on where they live like we all have. For me, I'm happy to live in a state with good gun laws and that's one of the reasons why I think it's a fairly safe state.

 

[benkrebs]

Kirk and I hardly ever agree...but man, people like teddy make me like Ron Paul less and less...

a state should not be allowed to restrict freedoms gar-on-teeed by the US constution. Period.

If I can interject here, I would like to just say that RP doesn't think that states can restrict freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution. He is just against the Federal Government intervening where it is not authorized by the Constitution. I believe he would be against Illinois not allowing its citizens to carry weapons, so he would work to make them allow it. It's guaranteed in the Constitution. However, the Constitution does not give the Federal government power to say, regulate abortion, so if CA allows it and say IN doesn't, then it is not the Feds role to FORCE IN to allow it or CA to outlaw it. Now, if the Supreme Court ruled as they did in Roe v Wade that a women has a right to choose, then it would be up to the Feds to make sure that that was enforced in the states. The point is, he is for a SMALLER federal government that only exercises powers enumerated in the Constitution. He is honestly one of the few candidates that I could vote for with almost 100% confidence.


EDIT:
@Kirk, I will attempt to answer your questions.

The US Constitution says that it can enforce a ban on slavery in the states. Would Ron Paul enforce this?

Yes, it's in the Constitution.

The US Constitution says that the Second Amendment applies to the States. Would Ron Paul permit New Jersey to disregard the Constitution's Second Amendment.

No, the Constitution guarantees it.

Basically, he's all about the Constitution. Would he allow slavery again? Nope. Does he believe that the President has the power to create bureaucracies such as the Federal Reserve and FEMA? No. (His support of the abolishing of the Federal Reserve is one subject I don't really support 100% due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. If we had left the Gold Standard, would we still have had as much economic growth as we had in the last few decades of the 20th century? If we had stayed, would our currency be that much more stable?)

Do I think he is a perfect candidate? No one is perfect. But he is qualified, experienced, STEADFAST and CONSISTENT, and actually respects the Constitution. Would a guy who didn't respect the Constitution openly talk about dissolving FEMA as a hurricane approached the US coast? You say that this is a sign that he doesn't want to be elected. I take this as a sign that he actually believes what he says and won't flip flop like every other greasy politician on the Hill.

 

[teddy12b]

If I can interject here, I would like to just say that RP doesn't think that states can restrict freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution. He is just against the Federal Government intervening where it is not authorized by the Constitution. I believe he would be against Illinois not allowing its citizens to carry weapons, so he would work to make them allow it. It's guaranteed in the Constitution. However, the Constitution does not give the Federal government power to say, regulate abortion, so if CA allows it and say IN doesn't, then it is not the Feds role to FORCE IN to allow it or CA to outlaw it. Now, if the Supreme Court ruled as they did in Roe v Wade that a women has a right to choose, then it would be up to the Feds to make sure that that was enforced in the states. The point is, he is for a SMALLER federal government that only exercises powers enumerated in the Constitution. He is honestly one of the few candidates that I could vote for with almost 100% confidence.


EDIT:
@Kirk, I will attempt to answer your questions.

The US Constitution says that it can enforce a ban on slavery in the states. Would Ron Paul enforce this?

Yes, it's in the Constitution.

The US Constitution says that the Second Amendment applies to the States. Would Ron Paul permit New Jersey to disregard the Constitution's Second Amendment.

No, the Constitution guarantees it.

Basically, he's all about the Constitution. Would he allow slavery again? Nope. Does he believe that the President has the power to create bureaucracies such as the Federal Reserve and FEMA? No. (His support of the abolishing of the Federal Reserve is one subject I don't really support 100% due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. If we had left the Gold Standard, would we still have had as much economic growth as we had in the last few decades of the 20th century? If we had stayed, would our currency be that much more stable?)

Do I think he is a perfect candidate? No one is perfect. But he is qualified, experienced, STEADFAST and CONSISTENT, and actually respects the Constitution. Would a guy who didn't respect the Constitution openly talk about dissolving FEMA as a hurricane approached the US coast? You say that this is a sign that he doesn't want to be elected. I take this as a sign that he actually believes what he says and won't flip flop like every other greasy politician on the Hill.

You did a much better job explaining it than my pitiful attempt. Very well said.

 

[benkrebs]

You did a much better job explaining it than my pitiful attempt. Very well said.

I just love ol' Ron so darn much