The only gun control that Ron Paul can support

[IndyGunner]

Thats because I dont have an answer haha

 

[Effingham]

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.

To be fair, it makes me respect him PERSONALLY -- as in, he is honest about his position.

OTOH, I will never vote for him, because I think he is too wrong on too many things. But I respect him way more than I do those guys who wet their fingers and hold them up to check the wind before stating a position -- which may be different from the position they stated yesterday.

Sincere is good. Wrong is not. Sincerely wrong is still wrong.


Tony

 

[IndyGunner]

What is he wrong on?

 

[rugertoter]

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

I agree with that! Spot on.

 

[Effingham]

What is he wrong on?

This seems pretty spot on.

Ron Paul A Distaster For The USA. Hes Always Wrong. Why Is There So Much Love For Him ? Wrong Paul , page 1

And this is good

FactCheck.org : Wrong Paul


Tony

 

[rambone]

This seems pretty spot on.

Ron Paul A Distaster For The USA. Hes Always Wrong. Why Is There So Much Love For Him ? Wrong Paul , page 1

You have got to be kidding. LOL

Ron Paul says he wants a smaller government. I suppose he doesnt realize what his actions will do to the country. He says he wants to get rid of many government agencies including the DOE, DHS, IRS, FEMA, DHHS, and the federal reserve.. What is he thinking? These are horrible ideas. The DOE oversees the US energy, inspections, research ect. The DHS keeps us safe. FEMA responds to disasters. The federal reserve is a very important body of the government. Doesnt he realize that by abolishing this he will destroy the country?

​

 

[IndyGunner]

You have got to be kidding. LOL

Ron Paul says he wants a smaller government. I suppose he doesnt realize what his actions will do to the country. He says he wants to get rid of many government agencies including the DOE, DHS, IRS, FEMA, DHHS, and the federal reserve.. What is he thinking? These are horrible ideas. The DOE oversees the US energy, inspections, research ect. The DHS keeps us safe. FEMA responds to disasters. The federal reserve is a very important body of the government. Doesnt he realize that by abolishing this he will destroy the country?

​

I know!!! LOL... I wont listen to anyone who cant define the fed in 10 words or less. Its a simple organization that is making our currency worthless.

 

[IndyGunner]

double fail QE1 and QE2 have also worked to stimulate the economy. Ben Bernanke can also prove how it has worked and why we needed it. There is proof that it has worked.

 

[IndyGunner]

Unemployment is 9.1% from 7.3 in 2008.... yeah, quantitive easing worked... sure. All we did is devalue our **** buy buying our own debt while paying ourselves for said debt with the money all of us pay on taxes. We give the rich (and I am NOT a rich hater) 0% money which they loan back to us at 30% interest. We postponed a recession... I dont see that as an effective use of government "effort".

 

[OS3-USN]

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

Good post. One thing the Founders never intended was for the federal Constitution to apply to the State's. The State's would never have ratified it had that been the case. They still viewed themselves as 13 sovereign nations and viewed the federal charter as secondary.

 

[RICHARDKANEpa]

The Ron Paul tent at Occupy Philly was teaching survival skills, Ron Paul Tent Hopefully only Temporary Closing,disenchanted Obamaites learned survival skills.Maybe Obama&Paul can also learn | Philadelphia Independent Media Center

 

[Mosinowner]

isn't Ron against the 1986 machinegun ban? Thats kinda a big deal for me now days.

 

[Johnny C]

This seems pretty spot on.

Ron Paul A Distaster For The USA. Hes Always Wrong. Why Is There So Much Love For Him ? Wrong Paul , page 1

And this is good

FactCheck.org : Wrong Paul


Tony

Seriously? He is wrong because I think he is wrong is basically what these say.

 

[grube555]

Ron Paul could be a founding father of a new generation!