Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Ron Paul on the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Frederica, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post



    Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 9, 2003

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

    Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the "instant" background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on "semi-automatic" weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the "sporting purposes" test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a "destructive device" simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be "non-sporting."

    Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.

    From Ronpaul2008.com

    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.

    More from ronpaul2008.com

    Dear Gun Owner,

    I hope, like me, you're a strong supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    My name is Ron Paul, and I'm the only pro-gun, pro-Constitution candidate running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

    The fact is, I believe those of us who support gun rights and the Constitution need to take a stand NOW, before it's too late.

    You see, if you listen to many politicians in Washington, the gun control crowd, and their mouthpieces in the "mainstream" media, you'd think the reason for our crime problem is a lack of tough (and un-Constitutional) gun-control legislation.

    That, my friend, is NONSENSE.


    It's a lie propagated by high-and-mighty politicians who think their job is to look out for "our own good" and who think all the problems of the world would be solved if they just exerted a little more control over our lives.

    Their answer?

    Force law-abiding American citizens who want to protect themselves through more bureaucratic rigmarole and throw up more "gun free zone" signs.

    The result?


    CRIMINALS ignore those signs and "regulations" and innocent people -- who are rendered helpless by obeying the law -- pay the price!

    I can tell you from my years in Washington that some politicians just can't get it through their heads that you can't create a safe society by disarming the good guys.

    If you want a president who will stand up for the United States Constitution, and who will LEAD the fight to restore our Second Amendment rights, then I hope to earn your support.

    Many "Republican" opponents and I don't see eye-to-eye on this important Constitutional issue. In fact, some of my opponents' views are more in line with Teddy Kennedy than with our Founding Fathers!

    Well, like you, I genuinely treasure our beautiful republic, and I've always had a desire to serve our country.

    In the mid-1970s, I decided to "throw my hat in the ring" and run for Congress, because -- quite frankly -- I was disgusted with the disdain politicians from both parties had for our Constitution.

    I'm sure you know just as well as I do that it's the Constitution that protects our God-given liberties as Americans. The truth is, those politicians who seem so eager to take a match and burn this treasured document are a grave danger to us all.

    As you may have heard, I'm now serving my 10th term as United States congressman from the 14th district of Texas. That experience has taught me many things, but above all, just how valuable and important our freedoms are. I want my children and grandchildren to have even more liberty than I've been blessed with.

    But the fact is, if you and I have learned anything from past presidential administrations, and the current liberal Congress, it's that our freedoms are constantly under attack. And unfortunately, we've also learned we can't trust every politician in Washington, D.C. with an "R" next to his or her name to do the right thing.

    That's why when any politician goes on attack against our Second Amendment rights, you can be sure that I will boldly stand against them.

    As a United States Congressman, I have:

    - Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment rights to all Americans, without infringement, that have been stripped away;

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

    - Introduced legislation to repeal the 1993 National "Instant Background Check" gun registration bill;

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

    - Opposed all gun control schemes that would register ALL private sales and mandate government "Lock-up Your Safety" devices;

    - Introduced legislation to protect American citizens' freedom to carry in our national parks.

    - Publicly Opposed legislation just this year 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.

    If nominated to represent the Republican Party in 2008, you can bet I'll continue to be 100% pro-gun and 100% pro-freedom -- unlike some of my opponents whose messages "get tailored" to fit the views of the crowd they're talking to.

    But more than that, I will be a leader for our Constitutional rights -- all of them -- especially your gun rights.

    That's why I am running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

    The fact is, I've never thought that standing up for the Constitution was anything to be ashamed of, but too many of our politicians nowadays care more about their hair than what is right.

    Gun control is NOT the answer to our crime problem -- and not one of our Constitutional rights is up for "debate."

    Every new restriction creates more bureaucracy that will spend more of our tax dollars and force police to waste time on paperwork instead of patrolling the streets.

    Whether you own a gun for personal protection or if you don't own a gun and just believe in the U.S. Constitution -- I hope to earn your support.


    That's why I hope you will support me in four important ways:
    (First was removed from this post)[/i]
    Second, I ask you to tell every pro-Second Amendment voter you know about my campaign. The fact is, maybe I'm just not enough of a left-winger for the Katie Couric and her gun-grabbing pals in the mainstream media, but I know the power of your grassroots activism.

    You know just as well as I do that this would be a far different country if it wasn't for folks like you who are willing to take action for and stand for what is right. So please spread the word to family, friends, neighbors, church members, and fellow hunters -- and people you know that just plain care about the Constitution. You can use the
    following text to send out an email to all your contacts.

    And third, it's not easy for me to ask, but I ask for your financial support as well. The best ideas in the world can't make a difference unless I can present them to the voters, and the fact is that will take money.

    And fourth-- if at all possible -- get out and vote for me in your state's primary or caucus. To do this, you will need to check on your state's voter registration requirements. Some states may require you to change parties to vote in the Republican primary/caucus.


    With your support, I pledge to continue fighting for our Second Amendment freedoms.

    Yours truly,

    Dr. Ron Paul
    Republican for President


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Yea.................. to bad more of my fellow gun owners didn't or don't support him the way they should. Perhaps things would be different.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    We missed our chance. Dr. Paul may have been a once in a lifetime chance...

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    No.

    I just drove through deepest NC and TN, through 'Deliverance'-like country for sixish hours - through Ron Paul Country.

    Some here have damned folk for the attitudes stereotyped in 'Deliverance' but if they are the enemy then we have met them - us.

    I will vote Constitution Party or write-in Ron Paul. Vote your principles and let the Devil take the hindmost.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO ****

  5. #5
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Looking at the possibilities for the next likely President does indeed make this a dark hour for our Republic, but remember it is always darkest before the dawn.

    Money and time to Ron Paul was not, IMHO, wasted. There is real political discussion now about the role of government and the limits to government power.

    Fight the good fight at the local and state level. There will be another candidate that insists on limited government and is willing to shoot the damned nanny government betweenits figurativeeyes.

    Have faith and hope for our future.

    Live free or die.

    Thundar

    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    I agree. It doesn't end with Ron Paul, for what it's worth.

    I'm probably voting Constitution Party, too.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    No.

    I just drove through deepest NC and TN, through 'Deliverance'-like country for sixish hours - through Ron Paul Country.

    Some here have damned folk for the attitudes stereotyped in 'Deliverance' but if they are the enemy then we have met them - us.

    I will vote Constitution Party or write-in Ron Paul. Vote your principles and let the Devil take the hindmost.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO ****
    For once I agree with you on something. I am also writing in Ron Paul.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    C'mon now guys, vote for somebody who's actually running. Constitution Party or Libertarian Party (if they come up with a pro-life candidate).

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Oley, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    As mortified as I am with how the twisted commonwealth of PA voted. I have and will always vote my conscience.

    But I agree that all of the time and money I gave to Dr. Paul was not wasted because he did not win. The message that many people have gotten from the amazingmessage he had will resound in the halls of many futures sessions. And although many resisted because they disagreed with the true freedom he preached many did not. And it would be my hope that those who stood with him will stand at every polling place and contact every member of our goverment to keep the message of liberty and freedom alive.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    C'mon now guys, vote for somebody who's actually running. Constitution Party or Libertarian Party (if they come up with a pro-life candidate).
    Why? I support Ron Paul. I'd write in Thomas Jefferson, but he's not with us anymore. Ron Paul is.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Why? I support Ron Paul. I'd write in Thomas Jefferson, but he's not with us anymore. Ron Paul is.
    Dr. Paul has said he won't run 3rd party and he isn't getting the GOP nomination. Therefore he's still technically in the race, but will have withdrawn before the actual vote.

    So voting for Ron Paul in the general is strictly a protest. You're voting against something, not for something, because he won't be running. Might as well write in your own name.

    If you can find somebody else you agree with (if you like Ron Paul you'll like Constitution or Libertarian), who is actually running, you're voting FOR something and advancing a positive cause, instead of just trying to drag down something else.

    At least that's my take. I wish Ron Paul would have gone 3rd party so I could vote for him. I'm just trying to be as constructive as possible with my vote now. I think that's what Dr. Paul would want -- otherwise he'd be running 3rd party.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    Why? I support Ron Paul. I'd write in Thomas Jefferson, but he's not with us anymore. Ron Paul is.
    Dr. Paul has said he won't run 3rd party and he isn't getting the GOP nomination. Therefore he's still technically in the race, but will have withdrawn before the actual vote.

    So voting for Ron Paul in the general is strictly a protest. You're voting against something, not for something, because he won't be running. Might as well write in your own name.

    If you can find somebody else you agree with (if you like Ron Paul you'll like Constitution or Libertarian), who is actually running, you're voting FOR something and advancing a positive cause, instead of just trying to drag down something else.

    At least that's my take. I wish Ron Paul would have gone 3rd party so I could vote for him. I'm just trying to be as constructive as possible with my vote now. I think that's what Dr. Paul would want -- otherwise he'd be running 3rd party.
    No, I willnot bevoting against anything. I will bevoting for the person that I want to be the next president. Regardless of whether or not he is running. If I thought that my father would be the best person to run the country, I would vote for him. I think that Ron Paul would be the best president, so I'm voting for him. I don't care if a bunch of people are voting with me or not. I'm voting for what I believe in, and I believe in Ron Paul. This "make your vote count" attitude is why we're stuck with a 2 party system. I don't care how much my vote counts. I do care that it is for Ron Paul.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    No, I willnot bevoting against anything. I will bevoting for the person that I want to be the next president. Regardless of whether or not he is running. If I thought that my father would be the best person to run the country, I would vote for him. I think that Ron Paul would be the best president, so I'm voting for him. I don't care if a bunch of people are voting with me or not. I'm voting for what I believe in, and I believe in Ron Paul. This "make your vote count" attitude is why we're stuck with a 2 party system. I don't care how much my vote counts. I do care that it is for Ron Paul.
    I disagree.

    "Compromise for expedience" is what got us here.

    "Make your vote count as much as possible without compromising your principles" would get us out.

    I will vote my conscience. If I can't find anybody I truly believe in by the general election, I would write in Ron Paul. But I fully expect the Constitution Party to come up with somebody great.

    Ron Paul doesn't want to be president at this point. That part of his mission is over. He's in education mode now. If he still thought people voting for him was the right thing now, he'd be running no matter what. Ron Paul is a great man. I'm disappointed I won't have the chance to honor him with my vote, but I trust his judgment.

    I will be going to our Washington State Republican convention in Spokane, representing Ron Paul and liberty as an elected delegate from the 3rd congressional district. Many of us Ron Paul supporters have been elected, and we plan to take the cause all the way to national, as loudly as possible. That's what Dr. Paul asked us to do, and that's what we're doing.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Honestly, I know a lot of people are writing in Ron Paul. I wouldn't doubt if he gets more votes than the Constitutional party, running or not.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    C'mon now guys, vote for somebody who's actually running. Constitution Party or Libertarian Party (if they come up with a pro-life candidate).
    The Constitution Party of Oregon has selected Ron Paul. The National Convention is going on right now.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I'm writing in Ron Paul. Period.

    No nonsense about the Constitution Party (which nobody ever heard of) or the Libertarian Party (which has never been effective). I've picked my candidate and he's the only one I can vote for and keep a clean conscience. I once voted for Bush many years ago and I will ever after regret it, having watched a man I voted for turn toward police statism. Not this time.

    I will say this, though, if Bob Barr runs as a Libertarian, I wish him luck. He would be the only other possible candidate I could support.

    Or I could just carry out my threat and vote for Hillary like I promised I would if RP got rejected.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    The Constitution Party is 3rd largest, in terms of voter registration. Beats the Libertarian Party, for what it's worth...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Constitution Party seems to be based too much on the Bible for a government entity.
    1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
    3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
    ...and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.
    Voting for any entity that bases part(s) of itself on any religious teachings, even if they match what you believe, is a very dangerous path. You cannot have an objective and equal government of the people if you do not separate state and religion.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    SmallWhiteBox wrote:
    Constitution Party seems to be based too much on the Bible for a government entity.
    1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
    3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
    ...and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.
    Voting for any entity that bases part(s) of itself on any religious teachings, even if they match what you believe, is a very dangerous path. You cannot have an objective and equal government of the people if you do not separate state and religion.
    I agree with the constitutional party but I cannot support them because of this. I believe in what they believe in except that I do not believe that my morals need to represented in law. I am libertarian except that I am pro-life because I do not see abortion as a woman's rights issue, I see it as a human rights issue. If the Libertarian party would look scientifically at the issue of abortion and see that it is murdering a child, I would be in full support of them as well.

    Right now the only candidate who represents my beliefs is Ron Paul.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    The nice thing about being a small "L" libertarian is that you don't have to identify with the Libertarian Party. I certainly don't; to me it's just an organization and a damned ineffective one. No surprise since getting libertarians to stop disagreeing long enough to win an election is like trying to poke a hole in water. Libertarians believe that once you start compromising on things you believe in than you will turn into a Republican, and they've got a point. But I think that if you look at politics as a whole, it's always the most ineffective or "fringe" groups (I hate to use that word) that are the most uncompromising, because after all, if you've got almost no shot to actually win the election, what have you got to lose by rigidly sticking to every single one of your beliefs? This is true for not only Libertarians and Constitutionalists, but also for Greens and other parties of the left which never get more than single-digit percentages.

    Before I would vote for a particular third-party candidate, I have to wonder what this party would look like if it actually gained power and had something at stake. How quickly would the LP turn into "Republican Party Jr." if they started winning senate seats? Once they become a viable ticket to get elected, they too will start to attract career politicians who will be only too eager to dress themselves up like real libertarians (same way McCain dresses himself up like a real republican) in order to get that desk in DC, at which time the compromising begins.

    Ron Paul is, in my opinion, a rare breed. He may have made some erors over the years, and of course he can't please everyone, but he's so honest and consistent after all this time in congress that it makes me wonder if he's not an alien from Mars or something. Guys like that are few and far between. I could be wrong, of course, but if nothing else he has proven he doesn't sell out, even under pressure from heavyweights like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    SmallWhiteBox wrote:
    Voting for any entity that bases part(s) of itself on any religious teachings, even if they match what you believe, is a very dangerous path. You cannot have an objective and equal government of the people if you do not separate state and religion.
    Why not? I don't think we can have an objective and equal government of the peopleso long as we are able to vote for president in thegeneral elections. Too many promises that should never be and it advocates corruption beyond comprehension. Probably why the founders had congress vote for president and not the people.

    The so-called separation of church and state exists nowhere in the constitution or the declaration of independence. References to God exist in the declaration, on our money, and in the writings of most of the founders, among other places. If it wasn't unconstitutional after 1791, thenit isn't unconstitutional now.

    Not one specific "religion" is mentioned or"established"but to discount all religion is to actuallyadovocate and establishthe religion of atheism.


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cody, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    I will be writing in Ron Paul, as will many of my friends. When CNN has to say that Paul got 5% of the vote, it is one more mention that spreads his, and our, message.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    Manka Cat wrote:
    I will be writing in Ron Paul, as will many of my friends. When CNN has to say that Paul got 5% of the vote, it is one more mention that spreads his, and our, message.
    But they won't say it. They'll just leave that 5% out...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    495

    Post imported post

    Ron Paul. All the way.

    I don't care what anyone says, I still talk to people about Ron Paul and try to learn this people about their future and the possiblity of becoming a slave to the government.

    IMO, it's worse than zombie attacks.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    SmallWhiteBox wrote:
    Voting for any entity that bases part(s) of itself on any religious teachings, even if they match what you believe, is a very dangerous path. You cannot have an objective and equal government of the people if you do not separate state and religion.
    Why not?
    I think it would be pretty hard to abide by the first amendment if we passed laws based on Biblical teachings.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    re·spect·ing Function: preposition Date: circa 1611 1 : in view of : considering 2 : with respect to : concerning

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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