The only gun control that Ron Paul can support

[J_Wales]

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?

Why are the citizens of those States not standing up and protecting their natural rights?

This is an honest question.... why are they not?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why are the citizens of those States not standing up and protecting their natural rights?

Because they cannot. Need only look to the example of Reconstruction.

Sometimes the majorities tyrannize the minority. Instead of throwing our fellow citizens under the bus, as Ron Paul wishes, the proper role of the federal government is to fight for their natural rights rather than turn away and whistle.

 

[squirrelhntr]

Good debate. local, county, and state governments should be forced to live under the 2nd amendment as its stated in the Bill of Rights. no matter what unlearned voters or politicians do. this is a land of laws not opinions. that's my opinion.


" Any gun control is evidence government is going or already has gone bad."

 

[steveh_131]

Kirk, I can understand your argument on this matter. I really can.

I haven't had a chance to read up on the writers' intent of the 14th amendment, so I haven't yet formed an opinion on it. But you have and you are certainly qualified to do so.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you're right and Ron Paul is wrong in his interpretation of the 14th amendment.

First of all, I don't agree with you that he is disrespecting the constitution because of his views. His views were also the views of the original framers of the constitution. He simply thinks the Feds should stay out of state-level matters to allow states greater freedom to govern themselves.

Secondly, what practical problems does this present were he to become president? The USSC has already historically disagreed with him (at least for the last 100 years). I don't see this changing any time soon. It's certainly not a major part of his platform as president. Is this largely academic debate enough of a sticking point for you that you would prefer any of the other GOP candidates over him?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Basically, he's all about the Constitution.

If Ron Paul believes that the federal government's duty is to enforce the Constitution then he can sit in the Big Chair. However, someone needs to tell his supporters that this is the function of the federal government. The comments we see on INGO are unsettling at times.

His views were also the views of the original framers of the constitution.

The Framers of the 14th Amendment were most clear in what they meant.

Paul supporters can pretend that the Civil War did not happen and that the states have some sacred power to tyrannize but if this is his (Paul's) view he is wrong and not qualified for the office of the President.

Secondly, what practical problems does this present were he to become president?

The problem would be that President Paul, if this is his belief, would be breaking the oath of office in not bringing the states to heel and he should then be impeached and removed from office immediately.

 

[benkrebs]

If Ron Paul believes that the federal government's duty is to enforce the Constitution then he can sit in the Big Chair. However, someone needs to tell his supporters that this is the function of the federal government. The comments we see on INGO are unsettling at times.

I'm not exactly sure what comments you are talking about (I've never seen anything too far off on INGO) but I assure you, he believes in the Constitution 100%. He just doesn't believe in extending federal power past what the Constitution outlines. There is NO way he would allow states to infringe citizens rights as outlined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. He just wouldn't meddle in other things. One of the things he stands against is the bureaucracy. You may have heard him say in the debates on in interviews that he is against the Department of Education. Why? 1) the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to regulate education on a state level (and it could be argued that the Tenth Amendment expressly forbids it) and 2) it wastes taxpayer dollars. Has No Child Left Behind Really worked? Is our education system improving? I'm a 2010 HS grad. I can tell you that I think not.

PS Thank you for having a civil political discussion, this may be one of the only places on the internet where this actually happens.

 

[Destro]

saying that states have the right to come up with their own gun control is ignoring the 2nd ammendment. If a state can ignore the 2nd ammendment, then why can't they just pick and choose what ones they like and don't like?

soldiers are under the same branch as the president, should we disarm our troops?

 

[Destro]

I'm not exactly sure what comments you are talking about (I've never seen anything too far off on INGO) but I assure you, he believes in the Constitution 100%. He just doesn't believe in extending federal power past what the Constitution outlines. There is NO way he would allow states to infringe citizens rights as outlined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. He just wouldn't meddle in other things. One of the things he stands against is the bureaucracy. You may have heard him say in the debates on in interviews that he is against the Department of Education. Why? 1) the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to regulate education on a state level (and it could be argued that the Tenth Amendment expressly forbids it) and 2) it wastes taxpayer dollars. Has No Child Left Behind Really worked? Is our education system improving? I'm a 2010 HS grad. I can tell you that I think not.

PS Thank you for having a civil political discussion, this may be one of the only places on the internet where this actually happens.

did you read the posts on the first page?

 

[Destro]

First of all, I don't agree with you that he is disrespecting the constitution because of his views. His views were also the views of the original framers of the constitution. He simply thinks the Feds should stay out of state-level matters to allow states greater freedom to govern themselves.

speed limits = state matter
no slavery = federal matter
alcohol sales = state matter
ensuring the 2nd ammendment is not infringed = federal matter
sales tax = state matter
etc....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm not exactly sure what comments you are talking about (I've never seen anything too far off on INGO) but I assure you, he believes in the Constitution 100%.

Admittedly I may be allowing the followers to define the candidate. That is wrong and I need to go back and re-read what Paul has said about the Fourteenth Amendment and whether states are required to follow the Constitution.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Admittedly I may be allowing the followers to define the candidate. That is wrong and I need to go back and re-read what Paul has said about the Fourteenth Amendment and whether states are required to follow the Constitution.

He's not a fan of incorporation. I'm not much of a fan either. It severly limited the concept of state sovereignty and the republican form of government.

 

[steveh_131]

The Framers of the 14th Amendment were most clear in what they meant.

I'm not saying they weren't. I'm saying that the 14th amendment was purposely excluded from the Bill of Rights and added later.

The problem would be that President Paul, if this is his belief, would be breaking the oath of office in not bringing the states to heel and he should then be impeached and removed from office immediately.

I suppose my question is more along the lines of what, specifically, are you afraid will happen if he becomes president? And how important is that compared to some of the frightening beliefs of the other GOP candidates?

Admittedly I may be allowing the followers to define the candidate. That is wrong and I need to go back and re-read what Paul has said about the Fourteenth Amendment and whether states are required to follow the Constitution.

The only thing I've read so far is that he thought a court should have refused to hear a case on the grounds that the particular amendment didn't apply to states. I don't recall which amendment it was.

He's not a fan of incorporation. I'm not much of a fan either. It severly limited the concept of state sovereignty and the republican form of government.

So which amendments, if any, do you think should apply to state laws? I ask solely out of curiosity. It's an interesting subject and I want to learn more about it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm not saying they weren't. I'm saying that the 14th amendment was purposely excluded from the Bill of Rights and added later.

Are you suggesting the Founders set a plan in place to have their grand children adopt an amendment they didn't write as a result of a civil war they didn't start or see coming?

I suppose my question is more along the lines of what, specifically, are you afraid will happen if he becomes president? And how important is that compared to some of the frightening beliefs of the other GOP candidates?

My concern is that he interprets the original Constitution, not as amended. He picks and chooses the bits he likes and doesn't like.

The only thing I've read so far is that he thought a court should have refused to hear a case on the grounds that the particular amendment didn't apply to states. I don't recall which amendment it was.

It doesn't matter which amendment. The 14th incorporates them all.

So which amendments, if any, do you think should apply to state laws? I ask solely out of curiosity. It's an interesting subject and I want to learn more about it.

They all do. The 14th incoporates them.

 

[Destro]

So which amendments, if any, do you think should apply to state laws? I ask solely out of curiosity. It's an interesting subject and I want to learn more about it.

this is the big problem, the mindset that states can somehow trump the constution out of their own self intrest. ALL amendments apply to ALL states...no excepton.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Ron Paul was against the DC ban... I have not been able to find anything from Ron Paul saying that he believes states should be permitted to enforce gun control. I will keep looking, but here is a link that details his position regarding the DC ban:
Ron Paul on Gun Control

http://infowars.net/articles/february2008/080208gunban.htm

So, he basically spoke out in favor of the landmark case that asserted the 2nd amendment applies to states, right? If I am missing a technical difference, let me know - IANAL.

 

[steveh_131]

Are you suggesting the Founders set a plan in place to have their grand children adopt an amendment they didn't write as a result of a civil war they didn't start or see coming?

Maybe I'm confused in my history. I thought James Madison also introduced a 14th amendment that incorporated the bill of rights to the states. And this amendment was purposely rejected at the time.

Our current 14th amendment was written sometime later.

My concern is that he interprets the original Constitution, not as amended. He picks and chooses the bits he likes and doesn't like.

Do you know that for certain? Or does he dispute the intent of the 14th amendment as written? I haven't heard him say one way or another.

It doesn't matter which amendment. The 14th incorporates them all.

Again, maybe he disputes the interpretation of the 14th amendment itself.

They all do. The 14th incoporates them.

I wasn't asking about the constitutionality. I was asking your personal opinion regarding the incorporation doctrine.

 

[benkrebs]

this is the big problem, the mindset that states can somehow trump the constution out of their own self intrest. ALL amendments apply to ALL states...no excepton.

And that is what Paul believes...I wasn't saying (as I think you may have thought I was) that Paul wants to allow states to infringe on the Bill of Rights. He wouldn't allow it. I don't know how far he would allow the states to go before acting, but he wouldn't allow something like the DC ban or the abomination that is the ENTIRE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

 

[rambone]

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

Ron Paul doesn't love gun control of any stripe, I have no doubt.

The problem would be that President Paul, if this is his belief, would be breaking the oath of office in not bringing the states to heel and he should then be impeached and removed from office immediately.

Impeached for inaction? Really?

Do you think Ronald Reagan should have been impeached? He actually wrote his name on gun control legislation.

Admittedly I may be allowing the followers to define the candidate. That is wrong and I need to go back and re-read what Paul has said about the Fourteenth Amendment and whether states are required to follow the Constitution.

I'm interested in what you find.

 

[IndyGunner]

I think you just got that little short out of context quote from them talking more about individual states rights and his opinion on a drastically reduced FED.

Here you go: Ron Paul on Gun Control

 

[Destro]

I think you just got that little short out of context quote from them talking more about individual states rights and his opinion on a drastically reduced FED.

Here you go: Ron Paul on Gun Control

really does not answer "the" question