NRA & Ron Paul - What's the Deal?

Hunter, McCain, and Tancredo all voted in favor of the Lawfull Commerce in Firearms Act.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, that one vote again and again. One vote in twenty years, which has a principled, limited government explanation, renders everything else he has said and done "shaky"? Any OTHER examples of his "shaky" stance on guns? Does that one vote mean McCain is stronger on gun issues than Paul?

I'm glad Ron Paul doesn't seek a federal solution to every problem, and doesn't want to federalize tort law. The rush by the current political duopoly to federalize everything is what makes Ron Paul different, and popular.
 
There’s a rumor circulating among Ron Paul fans out there that NRA was snubbing Ron Paul by not listing him as a candidate on the web site showing here. Well, the reason is because he didn’t come to the Celebration of American Values where the NRA hosted many presidential aspirants. I decided to e-mail them and ask them about this, and here was the response I got:

Congressman Ron Paul was invited to the National Rifle Association’s Celebration of American Values. The NRA did not receive a response from him. As a result, there is no mention of him in the article. If Congressman Paul had accepted the invitation, or contacted the NRA prior to the event, every effort would have been made to accommodate his appearance. In fact, NRA did work with a number of candidates who did not RSVP and we facilitated their appearance in person or via videotaped message. The same courtesy would have been given to the Ron Paul campaign had they contacted us. If and when the NRA has another candidate forum, we hope that Congressman Paul would participate - either in person, or via videotaped message.

Taken from http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=2030

Paulites should note that it does your canadate no good to outright lie or distort easily verified facts .
 
Paulites should note that it does your candidate no good to outright lie or distort easily verified facts .
Click to expand...

As I pointed out in another thread, Ron Paul's biggest selling point is his integrity. Maligning that integrity (adjusting words and actions to fit your wishfull thinking), while a reflection on you personally, could also be considered by a fence sitter to be a reflection on Dr. Paul.
 
Yeah, yeah, that one vote again and again. One vote in twenty years, which has a principled, limited government explanation, renders everything else he has said and done "shaky"? Any OTHER examples of his "shaky" stance on guns? Does that one vote mean McCain is stronger on gun issues than Paul?

I'm glad Ron Paul doesn't seek a federal solution to every problem, and doesn't want to federalize tort law. The rush by the current political duopoly to federalize everything is what makes Ron Paul different, and popular.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that one tiny insignificant vote that, if Dr. Paul had his way, would allow his brand of "limited government" to proceed without any restraint. A brand of "limited government" which apparently includes completely unrestrained judicial activism where court-ordered video cameras are placed in gun stores to record every sale (Bloomberg Lawsuit), where court-appointed monitors have access to all gun sale records (Bloomberg Lawsuit - nice of Dr. Paul to protect our privacy rights in this way), where all gun sales by a firearm manufactuer must be conducted through gun stores that abide by consent agreements (Smith and Wesson Settlement), and so on.
 
Heheh...I know...I'm just trying to help 'em out.

I was upset, and I know the NRA was too, when Ron voted no to protect firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Luckily, the NRA was able to help get it passed anyway.
 
Here we go again! Another GOA thread!

Here we go again! Another "Bashing the NRA" thread!

Here we go again! Another Ron Paul thread!

Chui, I gotta give you credit for the ingenious method of incorporating all three topics into a single thread. Brilliant, simply Brilliant! :barf:

The above is simply my opinion. You can either agree or disagree...
 
Some here (commenting in this thread) don't seem to have a handle on our Republican form of gov't.

Hunter, McCain, and Tancredo all voted in favor of the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. This is the law making junk lawsuits against firearms manufacturers difficult to bring.

Huckabee is on record as supporting the Act.

Ron Paul voted against it.
Click to expand...

WHY is much more important that WHAT. WHY did he not support the bill in question????? There is a link which describes it very damned well. Federalism is very dangerous; and it's what has gotten us into this Communitarian form of legislation/gov't.

Either these individuals in office have principles or they do not. You can have the clowns you've mentioned due to extremely questionable - hell, lets call it like it is - TREASONOUS voting records.

Paul is as close as we've had to "one of the founders" returning from the grave. He's ALWAYS comparing and conrasting legislation and policy against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anything else is simply Fabian Socialism via Pragmatism. :barf:
 
Ron Paul (Dr. No) has sixty pages of pork-barrel earmark requests this year
Click to expand...

Is this really the best "smear" against Ron Paul the anti-Paul folks can come up with? Ron Paul has said repeatedly that he advocates these "earmarks" to return taxpayer money to his constituents in the only way he can - otherwise that money would be lost in some other government quango.
 
A brand of "limited government" which apparently includes completely unrestrained judicial activism where court-ordered video cameras are placed in gun stores to record every sale (Bloomberg Lawsuit), where court-appointed monitors have access to all gun sale records (Bloomberg Lawsuit - nice of Dr. Paul to protect our privacy rights in this way)
Click to expand...

No, he made it clear that he believes the Giuliani lawsuit is without merit, but that the feds should not be able to exempt politically protected classes from lawsuits in state courts. There has also been federal legislation to limit liability lawsuits against doctors, which Ron Paul opposed for the same reason. Do you think it's a good idea that the feds should limit your ability to sue a doctor in your state courts? Are federal laws likely to be more just and reasonable than state courts?

BTW, I don't even agree with that one vote, so no need to convince me, but I'm still wondering about any other anti-gun actions taken by Ron Paul over the past few decades. The one issue which comes up over and over doesn't bother me so much. OK, so states can allow silly lawsuits if Ron Paul gets his way, but we'd also have pilots who could defend themselves and a whole lot fewer federal gun laws. A fair trade.
 
It's easy to tell who has been drinking the GOA kool-aid, isn't it?

They spend the majority of their posts bashing and complaining and then somehow manage to become irate when someone disagrees with them.

And for the record, I don't care how many bills he has introduced, the only thing that matters is what he has managed to get passed. I don't hear too much about that.

John
 
And for the record, I don't care how many bills he has introduced, the only thing that matters is what he has managed to get passed. I don't hear too much about that.
Click to expand...

By that measure, schumer, clinton, biden, and feinstein have all managed to accomplished a lot. Maybe you like them for their records of getting legislation passed, but I think most of us would prefer if they had the same record as Paul. And lets look at the math; Paul wields one vote in 435 and has introduced good legislation. Its foolish and wrong to blame the man for the inaction and/or incompetence of his colleagues in not supporting his legislation.
 
Guys and gals.......Ron was not there because the NRA is a lobby group......that is the reason.
Ron Paul is 100% "listener supported" he is kicking a$$ and doing it without lobby groups....just plain old "we the people".

The bigger question is how the NRA will handle this election!!

Here is the NRA's response:

"Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. Regarding your comments, Congressman Ron Paul was invited to the National Rifle Association's Celebration of American Values. The NRA did not receive a response from him. As a result, there is no mention of your candidate in the article. If Congressman Paul had accepted the invitation, or contacted the NRA prior to the event, every effort would have been made to accommodate his appearance. In fact, NRA did work with a number of candidates who did not RSVP and we facilitated their appearance in person or via videotaped message. The same courtesy would have been given to the Ron Paul campaign had they contacted us. If and when the NRA has another candidate forum, we would hope that Congressman Paul would participate - either in person, or via videotaped message.

Best Regards,

Ryan Irsik

NRA-ILA"

Don't blame the NRA
Don't blame Ron
 
Some here (commenting in this thread) don't seem to have a handle on our Republican form of gov't.
Click to expand...

Apparently some of Dr. Paul's supporters, like the Congressman, seem to have never actually read the US Constitution and are unaware of concepts such as Article III, and the Commerce Clause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top