Grand opening of the Ron Paul campaign office in Reno

My wife and myself were just at the grand opening of the Ron Paul Campaign office here in Reno

The first person we meet was a volunteer taking names and email addresses so they can inform us of up coming events, and his response was "nice heat your packing, I wish more people would do that"

and for the rest of the evening that we were there (7 to 9pm), there was No bad comments about us carrying, a lot of thumbs up, some questions and some great discussions about the second amendment, but all in all it was a great evening

What other campaign office, for any other candidate, would not mess their drawers if they saw someone with a gun? Even those who claim to be pro-second amendment.

TBG

The Big Guy said:

What other campaign office, for any other candidate, would not mess their drawers if they saw someone with a gun? Even those who claim to be pro-second amendment.

TBG

Click to expand...

They didn't bat an eye at the Sharron Angle campaign office. I'd hazard a guess that the Herman Cain folks wouldn't be too worried, either.

DVC said:

I'd hazard a guess that the Herman Cain folks wouldn't be too worried, either.

Click to expand...

Thus far he's said he doesn't support "onerous legislation" against guns and that he thinks gun regulation should be up to the states. I'd like to know what he thinks qualifies as "onerous legislation." Candidates on all sides of elections seem to proclaim support for the second amendment, but some people's view of the second amendment is a lot different from mine.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/herman-cain-gun-control-a-states-issue-huh/

BLITZER: How about gun control?
CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.
B: So what’s the answer on gun control?
C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…
C: Yes
B: Yes?
C: Yes.
B: So the answer is yes?
C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

Click to expand...

DVC said:

They didn't bat an eye at the Sharron Angle campaign office. I'd hazard a guess that the Herman Cain folks wouldn't be too worried, either.

Click to expand...

Sorry I did not make myself clear, however I was mostly speaking of the current crop of Presidential candidates. Herman Cain? I don't know. He has stated publically that he is pro 2A, but then he also made the
statement that Guns are a States issue. He has been somewhat non responsive on the issue in total.

I would imagine that when the time comes that the nominee has been chosen, the Secret Service will step in and even Dr Paul would be protected from us evil gun packin’ citizens...

TBG

John-in-Reno:

Thanks for sharing your OC experience at the Ron Paul campaign office in Reno.

Most encouraging!

I don't have a problem with the "guns are the states issue" from a federal candidate. Really, that's the way it's supposed to be. The shared powers situation after all. All a federal candidate can really do is say "Look, I don't think this is a federal issue. As such it becomes a state issue.". That being said, there is the whole "States must abide by the Federal Constitution" thing, but as we all know, the Second Amendment isn't really recognized as it should be any longer. So, perhaps the question should really be posed something more along the lines of "Do you intend to return the Second Amendment to the state in which it was intended, and give the powers that it grant back to the people, and further enforce the requirements that states abide by the Constitution in such matters with stiff penalties for violations?"

gmijackso said:

I don't have a problem with the "guns are the states issue" from a federal candidate. Really, that's the way it's supposed to be. The shared powers situation after all. All a federal candidate can really do is say "Look, I don't think this is a federal issue. As such it becomes a state issue.". That being said, there is the whole "States must abide by the Federal Constitution" thing, but as we all know, the Second Amendment isn't really recognized as it should be any longer. So, perhaps the question should really be posed something more along the lines of "Do you intend to return the Second Amendment to the state in which it was intended, and give the powers that it grant back to the people, and further enforce the requirements that states abide by the Constitution in such matters with stiff penalties for violations?"

Click to expand...

The second amendment is very clear and if you read and understand the constitution, the 10th amendment says in simple language that only those items not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The second amendment IS NOT a state’s issue. The states are left those powers not granted to the federal government by the constitution or spelled out in the Constitution. The states have exactly zero say regarding the second amendment, period.

How can you turn this issue "back to the states" and then tell them how they have to deal with it? Can you show anywhere in the constitution where is says that the items contained therein are "shared" powers. I think not.

You are right about one thing, the constitution is mostly ignored except by politicians who use it only to further their agendas when and if they need it.

TBG

The Big Guy said:

The second amendment is very clear and if you read and understand the constitution, the 10th amendment says in simple language that only those items not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The second amendment IS NOT a state’s issue. The states are left those powers not granted to the federal government by the constitution or spelled out in the Constitution. The states have exactly zero say regarding the second amendment, period.

How can you turn this issue "back to the states" and then tell them how they have to deal with it? Can you show anywhere in the constitution where is says that the items contained therein are "shared" powers. I think not.

You are right about one thing, the constitution is mostly ignored except by politicians who use it only to further their agendas when and if they need it.

TBG

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, most likely due to my lack of paragraphs in that post. I was trying to say pretty much exactly what you were saying, just in a different way.

What I meant about the candidate, is that at least such a candidate sees that the system was intended to be a federal OR state issue, and not a mix of rules selectively enforced or upheld to create ambiguity.

I wasn't suggesting that the constitution was a "shared" power, and I'm pretty sure that nowhere in my post did I say that. What I meant, is that if a candidate says it's a state issue, its really no surprise, and at this point we'd probably be better off putting the issue completely in one set of hands rather than the mixed bag it currently is. When I said "that's how it's supposed to be, shared powers situation", I meant that its supposed to be either Federal regulation, or State regulation, not a mixed bag.

The 2A is SHOULD be very clear cut all the way down the line. It shall not be infringed, not by the federal nor state. When I said the 2A, and as you suggested the constitution as a whole, is mostly ignored anyway, I was trying to say that if the federal government isn't going to do right by the second amendment, perhaps if a federal official did make it truly a state issue, we could get a clear starting point.

I agree with everything you said, and it is exactly what I was trying to say. I'm just not able to get this particular point across very well for some reason. I don't feel this posting was much better either. I guess some points weren't meant to be made by some people. This one, is apparently not mine to make.

In addition to the 2nd amendment, there is also the 14th amendment, which has been held to restrict the ability of states to abridge the rights of individuals.

Cain says that he thinks states can regulate guns... but he doesn't say that he doesn't support federal regulations which are not "onerous." Perhaps that is what he meant, but he wasn't clear.

I'm sure many politicians would think anything short of an absolute gun ban is not onerous.

Felid`Maximus said:

Thus far he's said he doesn't support "onerous legislation" against guns and that he thinks gun regulation should be up to the states. I'd like to know what he thinks qualifies as "onerous legislation." Candidates on all sides of elections seem to proclaim support for the second amendment, but some people's view of the second amendment is a lot different from mine.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is always a problem.

However, having heard him guest hosting the Neal Boortz show a few times, I would tend to believe that he's well over on our side, and might even be in favor of Constitutional Carry (he said approving things about Arizona's law).

DVC said:

Yes, this is always a problem.

However, having heard him guest hosting the Neal Boortz show a few times, I would tend to believe that he's well over on our side, and might even be in favor of Constitutional Carry (he said approving things about Arizona's law).

Click to expand...

I have to admit, just to set the record straight, no matter what Cain says about the 2A I could not support him because of his history with the Federal Reserve. However, I have never heard him give a real, clear and definite answer to any questions concerning he 2A. In true political style he always soft shoed around the subject. If he has made a definitive, unambiguous stand regarding the 2A I would like to hear it. Being cornered by questions into taking the stand that it is a States rights issue is not in my opinion taking a firm stand one way or the other. In saying that he does not support onerous regulations regarding guns leads me to believe that he does support "some" (my words) regulation. Other candidates such as Paul have made their stand crystal clear. Some of them I'm not really sure means it as it may just be a situation of don't P off the NRA members. I listen to what they say and then judge them by their actions, past and present.

TBG

The Big Guy said:

I have to admit, just to set the record straight, no matter what Cain says about the 2A I could not support him because of his history with the Federal Reserve.

Click to expand...

Who better to take something apart than someone who used to be in the middle of it?

Would you not vote for Reagan because he was once a Democrat?

Pay attention to what Cain says and what he does. If these are things that you can go along with, then look at his opponents and ask the same question.

A friend from down in the Sharp End suggests that Cain would be a good president and that Paul would be a "legendary" Secretary of the Treasury.

Howard Dean tried the old "its up to the states" argument & we gunnies nailed him for it.
Left entirely up to the states means you can not even visit NYC and have a pistol in your hotel room, let alone on your person.

No, the states do not have permission to deny basic civil rights like the second amendment.

If Cain wants my vote he better damm well revisit this issue and make it clear he supports my right to carry in Every State and every City/town in the country.

So... Where is the Ron Paul office in Reno?

jfrey123 said:

So... Where is the Ron Paul office in Reno?

Click to expand...

1201 Terminal Way, Suite 224
Reno, NV 89502.

jfrey123 said:

So... Where is the Ron Paul office in Reno?

Click to expand...

How DARE you try to insert Ron Paul into a discussion of Ron Paul!

Seriously, I have been a registered Libertarian since 1989, but I do not want Ron Paul as president (though, if some miracle puts him up against Obumble, I will not only vote for Paul, I will also campaign for him).

I also don't want to see Paul as VP, but that's only because VP is a spare-tire post. Secretary of the Treasury would be a good place for him -- plenty of opportunity there for him to get good work done.