Ron Paul, anyone?

H

Haterade

New member
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3556.html

Ron Paul: More Guns Will Deter Shootings

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a simple solution to future shooting massacres such as the one that ripped apart Virginia Tech university Monday: more guns.

"People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there," the GOP presidential candidate told Politico reporters Tuesday. "A concealed gun carried by a responsible person -- that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed."

Paul, 71, is the kind of lawmaker, and presidential candidate, gun control advocates love to hate at moments like this. And, based on public opinion polls and reader feedback at Politico.com, he's far from alone.

Echoing the views of many Americans, he sees calls for restriction on guns as an affront to freedom. The libertarian-minded Texan is one of the most outspoken defenders of gun rights in Congress. Since the obstetrician was first elected to Congress in 1976, he has never voted for a bill restricting gun ownership. And he said the tragedy in Blacksburg, Va., could have been prevented if the school allowed students and professors to carry concealed weapons on campus.

Paul, who ran for the Libertarian presidential nomination in 1988, is well known on Capitol Hill for his outspoken, maverick positions. He opposed authorizing federal funding to victims of Hurricane Katrina. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Department of Education. He has called for a return to the gold standard. He argues that tighter gun control laws would have no impact on gun crime.

"It's the lack of access to law-abiding citizens to have guns in many places that increases our crime rate," he said. "We just can't prevent every tragedy of a maniac. So to pretend this happened because of lack of laws would be the wrong thing to assume."


Despite his pro-gun rhetoric, Paul also often finds himself voting with Democrats, particularly in the area of civil liberties. He was one of only three Republican lawmakers to vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001. He expressed concern that the Virginia Tech shootings would be exploited to crack down on civil liberties.

"I know there will be a call for, 'Boy, we've got to take hold of every single gun and register the gun.' It's sort of like after 9/11, we had to worry about terrorists, but what we've done is register every American," he said. "With national ID cards, inspection and loss of our liberties, warrantless searches, we've attacked law-abiding citizens. So, no, I don't think we need more gun control for law-abiding citizens."

Paul suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been avoided if the pilots on the hijacked airliners had been armed. "If terrorists knew that every pilot had a gun in the cockpit, they wouldn't have done it," he said. "They would have all been shot and wouldn't have accomplished their mission."
Click to expand...
 
Oh YEAH! Every time he opens his mouth it just gets better and better!!!:cool:

I don't think I've ever read or heard a Ron Paul speech or article I didn't like:cool:

Forget the presidency, let's get him for governor of Texas and secede, his mind and talents are wasted in Washington among airheads. How much can he get done as President when surrounded by self serving lowlives in Congress and Senate?
 
no compromising on the constitution in fact the man gives speeches on restoring it. anyone else in the republican party doing that? anyone? Bueller?

instead I see a bunch of Republicans that want to vote in a Actor. which goes to show Americans are clueless and go for the sexy vote. not the vote of substance.
 
MSNBC is hosting a televised debate on May 3 (I think), with a bunch of Republican candidates, and Ron Paul is included. Hopefully, I won't forget to watch!
 
I love ron Paul to Death, support everything he stands for, and he has constitutional views on gun ownership.

But lets not forget the NRA attempted to sway voters during the '06 elections by giving him a lower grade than a gun control democrat that was running against him. Thats why I tend to stay away from organizations that can be infilitrated and controlled.
 
I like his views, but don't think he's electable. With a Libertarian background many think he is on the fringe. That will hurt him in a nationwide election IMHO.
 
I've been proud to send him money for his congressional campaigns, and if I still lived in his district, I'd campaign for him. Even when I've disagreed with him, I have found his reasoning to be more sound, cogent, and logical than my own.

The man could make more money as a physician than as a congressman. He does it because he loves the Constitution and for the past 15 years that I have been tracking his votes, I must say that I've never seen him do something against the constitution. He interprets it literally. I want him appointed to the Supreme Court.
 
I've already got the bumper stickers. This guy has nearly every quality we look for but charisma. He's a pretty normal person, certainly not pretentious. In one of his congressional campaigns, he was raffling off a nice .22 rifle. I didn't win, but admired the rifle and listening to him speak.

He's probably better than Bush at speaking, but not the kind to get your blood boiling over imaginary hobgoblins like immigration or other conservative issues. He just plainly states his views without embellishment. Of course I bet most on this forum likely agree with him 90%.

I know he is very pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-liberty, and then the stranger stuff like pro-gold/silver standard (as opposed to a floating dollar), very anti-IRS to the point of repealing the income tax amendment and reinstituting the indirect forms of taxation that we had for over a hundred years.

No- he probably won't win, but I'm voting for him in the primaries again. I also voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 election, so maybe I have a knack for picking the best guy to lose the race.
 
If he is on the ballot he has my vote and I really hope that he makes it on the ballot in some way, shape, or form.
 
He is electable. He could win. Being just exactly who and what he is...if people voted what they actually believe. What makes him "unelectable" is the Repub establishment, the media and certain Repub voters who are beyond understanding. On a "conservative" forum(read Bush-loving /My Party Right or Wrong site) yesterday I watched the Poster of the Month call Dr Paul a "Teddy Kennedy style liberal". I was an Admin there once...and thankfully am no more. :barf:

But my point is, the Repub leadership no longer has anything to do with conservatism or the Constitution and there are a lot of Republicans out there who have become much like many Dem voters. Whatever the Party says is the way it is. They'll vote for and support whichever high profile politico the Party tells them to and insult(often in absurdly stupid ways) every other candidate because, hey, the Repub Party is conservative...just like Old Timers still think the Dem party is the Party of the Working Man...and so will always give them the "right" candidate.

If their beliefs happen to tell them something else they'll just quash those down and follow the talking points.

We don't have to make Paul more palatable to the people. He's fine. We just have to stop the political machine from doing only what is in its best interest and feeding the people a line of crap while doing it. THAT probably isn't goign to happen.
 
The only thing past the primaries is the nomination, and I would be surprised to see Dr. Paul nominated by the Republican party. I suppose he might jump to a third party upon losing the nomination, but only if he has no thought of trying again in four years.

I'll get out there and vote for him in the primary and then write in his name in the general election. Might as well let them know what I want on election day, and I want a President who will buy ink for his veto pen by the rail car. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top