Gun Owners For Ron Paul

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll take that bait.
So you're saying that our present system of currency where your dollar represents what the government says it represents and that can be just a binary code that represents a dollar is worth more or more valuable than some binary code that represents an ounce of gold is preferable?
Click to expand...

KJM, if we had no trade outside our borders, that'd work. But you're talking 19th century.

Every day, I make purchases instantly that might be in Yen, Euros, Reals, whatever. The values are constantly in flux. The money has nothing to do with the United States government or its gold stores, but it's still worth real goods, products and services.

I don't think you've had any experience with the transactions going on every second in any large multinational corporation, or you'd know better.

Money no longer represents shiny metal. It represents its true worth to those trading and holding it in terms of resources, goods and services and what they're willing to exchange them for on a global scale.

GLOBAL.

The way money works now vs the era of the gold standard is like comparing the Internet to a single pair of battery-powered telephones. It's not that simple anymore, nor will it ever be. It is a vast web of millions of transactions per second between all world currencies and their constantly fluxing value.
 
Gun owners may be for Ron Paul, but Ron Paul is not for gun manufacturers. Ron Paul voted against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. He didn't care that the gun manufacturers were being sued out of business.
Click to expand...
And do you know why he voted the way he did or are you taking that at face value without any research?
 
Fremmer, Fremmer, Fremmer

Perhaps you forgot this thread you started on this very site back in August? Entitled "Why did Ron Paul vote against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?"

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257671

Danzig answered your question then (if you were really seeking an answer), using Dr. Paul's own comments on the floor of the House:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it."
Click to expand...

Principles are such inconvenient critters. They always jump up and yap at you when you contemplate doing something expedient, yet odious.
 
I'm well aware of my own thread. And I still don't understand how protecting gun manufacturers from silly lawsuits is somehow unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, Paul's vote against the Act not only calls into question whether he truly supports the 2nd Amendment, but, more importantly, whether Paul truly understands the United States Constitution.

If the legislation is unconstitutional, please provide a cite to a case in which a Judge (Federal or State) has held that the Act is unconstitutional. You can't provide such a cite, because no Judge has ruled that the Act is unconstitutional. Because the Act does not violate the Constitution. Which means Ron Paul's excuse for voting against the Act is nothing more than an excuse, and an invalid excuse at that.

But I suppose that Ron Paul supporters are content with Remington, Smith & Wesson, Colt, and all of the other firearm manufacturers being sued out of existance. Because Ron Paul says the Act is unconstitutional (even though it is not). :rolleyes:
 
A bill doesn't have to wind up before a judge to be considered unconstitutional in one's eyes. I assume it has to in order to be considered legally unconstitutional but not in one's own set of principles. If I were a Congressman and a bill came up before me that put regulation of pet adoption under the purview of a new federal agency concerning kitties and puppies I'd vote against it because, to me, that seems unconstitutional. It just doesn't seem to be something that the constitution has authorized the federal government to have control over.

:confused:
 
Last edited:
Yeah, whether legislation is legally unconstitutional is actually pretty important. ;) If legislation is not legally unconstitutional, then it does not violate the Constitution. Funny how it works that way. Apparently, Paul doesn't seem to realize that. :rolleyes:

Look, if Ron Paul is content to allow firearm manufacturers to be sued out of existence, then he should have just said so, instead of making up a silly, vague excuse to justify his vote against legislation that prevented de-facto gun control in the form of lawsuits designed to drive firearm manufacturs out of business. Especially when the Act does not violate the Constitution.
 
Trying to paint Dr. Paul as anti gun is stupid and anyone who holds such a view is either ignorant of a liar.
 
Look, if Ron Paul is content to allow
Click to expand...
...yada, yada, yada.
You are trying to attribute your reasoning into someone else's thoughts and actions. I really hate that.
You don't have to like his actions or his stated reasons for the actions, but quit trying to put your thoughts into someone else's reasoning.
 
Yeah, whether legislation is legally unconstitutional is actually pretty important. If legislation is not legally unconstitutional, then it does not violate the Constitution. Funny how it works that way. Apparently, Paul doesn't seem to realize that.
Click to expand...
So if it goes directly against what the constitution does or doesn't say it's still not unconstitutional until it goes before a judge? An all out gun ban wouldn't be unconstitutional until it got to a judge for a ruling? :confused:

Look, if Ron Paul is content to allow firearm manufacturers to be sued out of existence,
Click to expand...
spin spin spin spin spin, having fun? You've read the explanation yet you still want to pretend like he's actually content with having them sued out of existence?
then he should have just said so, instead of making up a silly, vague excuse to justify his vote against legislation that prevented de-facto gun control in the form of lawsuits designed to drive firearm manufacturs out of business. Especially when the Act does not violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Again, it doesn't have to be put into law and then challenged to be considered in violation of the Constitution on the basis of his own principles. I sure as hell wouldn't vote for someone that just rubber stamps every bill into law and figures "well, if it's really unconstitutional it'll get to a judge eventually and be fixed there".
 
Ron Paul is not against firearms in any way or form.

He's just hopelessly naive, and everything from the gold standard nonsense to his hide-under-bed foreign policy to that statement on protecting firearms manufacturers show that.

He's naive, and doesn't have a grasp on things at all. Totally out of it. Not against firearms, but doesn't have a clue how reality works.
 
I did? Where? Quote me.

I said nothing of the sort. I think you're looking at someone else's posts!

Read back through the thread. That was someone else's argument. I've said he's naive and that his most ardent supporters are, at least here, anarchist loons, but I never said he was "anti-gun".
 
No problem...

Paul would be fine as a 2A or constitution activist.

Presidential candidate? Not so much. He reminds me of a tenured professor who has been reading books for so long that he has no idea how things really are in the harsh, backstabbing, brutal real world, and how complex the web of international relations and finances are.

Someone with a sharp grasp on reality wouldn't suggest a 19th century gold standard for a world where money represents prices bid for resources, goods and services, not a precious metal, and where millions of electronic transactions in all world currencies go on every second. And they wouldn't give a soundbite like that about the defense of gun manufacturers that plays right into the hands of the antis. They'd know better.

He doesn't.
 
I sure as hell wouldn't vote for someone that just rubber stamps every bill into law and figures "well, if it's really unconstitutional it'll get to a judge eventually and be fixed there"
Click to expand...
I do believe that George Bush, on signing the campaign finance reform bill, said that he thought that it was unconstitutional but would let the Supreme Court overturn it. They didn't, and now we're stuck with it.
Considering that he swore to uphold the constitution, it really soured me on him.
Speaking of upholding the constitution, how could our lawmakers honestly uphold the constitution if they had to wait for the SC to tell them which laws were constitutional or not. And the SC does not look at all the laws, just ones that someone questions and works through all the lower levels.
 
Sorry Red, but if the Act were unconstitutional, it would have been challenged as such by all of the cities that were suing the firearm manufacturers so that the silly lawsuits could continue to be prosecuted. Instead, these silly lawsuits are being dismissed -- because the Act is constitutional.

Look, Ron Paul justified his vote against the Act on the basis that it was purportedly unconstitutional. Yet neither Paul nor his supporters can explain exactly how it is unconstitutional. All we get is a vague conclusion that the Act "violates the Constitution", without any specifics.

Gun owners have a right to a specific explanation about why Paul voted against vital pro-gun legislation, and no explanation has been forthcoming. And that ought to concern gun owners. What other pro-gun legislation would Paul summarily (and vaguely) determine to be "unconstitutional", resulting in a veto? Who knows? These are hard questions that need to be answered, and Paul seems to want to avoid the entire issue.
 
Ron Paul is the only viable option. He's a Libertarian at heart. I really wish he was running under that ticket though and not the Republican one.
Click to expand...
nice try
everybody knows the deck is stacked against 3rd party guys. They would waste all thier money just getting their name on the ballots in each state.
Ron is forcing change...weather the big-Govt gop wants it or not.
 
Stating the fact that Paul voted against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is neither ignorant nor a lie. He voted against protecting firearm manufacturers from being sued out of business. That amounts to a vote against our Second Amendment constitutional right to keep and bear arms, because it's impossible to keep and bear arms when firearms manufacturers can't stay in business to manufacture firearms and ammunition. Paul's excuse that the Act violates the Constitution is not only vague and weak -- it is legally incorrect, and speaks volumes of Paul's lack of knowledge about the Constitution. Gun owners should realize that Ron Paul's misinterpretation of the Constitution has already caused him to vote against their interests.
 
I'd just like Ron Paul ("the most pro-second amendment and pro-freedom candidate") to give a specific reason for Paul's vote against pro-gun legislation. Gun owners want to know....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top