Ron Paul, anyone?

Redworm,
That actually makes sense. I didn't think that he would actually vote for it, given his writing on the subject.

Something I did notice while getting to the bottom of it tho': He seems to advocate "In God We Trust" on our money and prayer in school.

While the more socially Conservative among us no doubt applaud that, I don't see how that's reconciled with the 1st Amendment. :confused:
 
I think he's cool with allowing it but wouldnt be likely to force it on anyone. Another reason I'd think a Gravel/Paul ticket would be awesome; they can balance each other out on issues like religion, guns and economics.

A wise man once accurately said "the mob is not in the habit of electing ungodly apostates who denigrate people of faith" which, imho, is quite unfortunate.
 
Another reason I'd think a Gravel/Paul ticket would be awesome; they can balance each other out on issues like religion, guns and economics.
Click to expand...

So just how much balancing would Gravel need on guns, anyway? I have only looked a bit, and GOA has nothing on his firearms views, nor does that issues2008 site.
 
I will vote for Ron Paul, I hope that defeatism, or fear will not cause anyone here to not vote for him. If we don't put our money and our vote on our principles, we have no cause for complaint when the congress doesn't act the way we want. We, the citizens have the power. But, we have to exercise it for it to work. Donate, Call, Write and above all vote for your candidate. I refuse to believe that the Dems or the Repubs can win over the peoples will.
 
Just a friendly note here. The thread (supposedly) is about Ron Paul. There is a separate thread to discuss citizenship here.

To keep this thread open, let's keep it on topic.
 
Publius,
According to his campaign site, Gravel supports licensing and mandatory training for gun owners. Which, believe it or not, is pretty tame compared to most of the Dem field.
 
I don't care if he's "electable". I'm voting for him.
Click to expand...

Even if he does have bad points, which all politicians do. I'd take him long before I'd take the likes of McCain or Guliani. If he won the primary the GOP would win the general. He is just what the GOP needs to draw the long disgusted conservitaves to the polls.
If McCain or Guliani won the primary the GOP would lose for sure. The Gop has for too long been seen as just the better of two evils. If someone such as Ron Paul got in for once people could say there is a canidate that is more than just the better of two evils. They could say there is a canidate that they could vote for instead of just voting against the other guy. The fact that the liberal media has censored him should tell you something right there. He has my full support
 
So just how much balancing would Gravel need on guns, anyway? I have only looked a bit, and GOA has nothing on his firearms views, nor does that issues2008 site.
Click to expand...
http://www.gravel2008.us/issues

2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

While Senator Gravel fully supports the 2nd Amendment, he believes that fundamental change must take place with regards to gun ownership. The senator advocates a licensing program where a potential gun owner must be licensed as well as properly trained with a firearm before they may own one.
Click to expand...
That's where Paul would balance that out. They could find a happy medium in saying gun owners should have to be licensed and trained to carry but not own.
 
This is utterly ridiculous. If you want to change the anchor baby law then you're gonna need to change the amendment. Theres no way around that. No amount of ridiculous treatises written by comspiracy folks is gonna change that.

There is an alternative however, and i don't know whether its constitutional or not. While the baby born here is a citizen, he won't be able to claim it until he's 18. As a result, we deport the whole family since its clearly in the best interests of the child to remain with his folks. Upon turning 18 he can come here if he like and stay.

This removes the incentive for many to come here because most just aren't going to have the patience to wait 18 years for this kids to enter. On top of that, the family still does not get to come unless the kid petitions for their entry legally.
 
2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

While Senator Gravel fully supports the 2nd Amendment, he believes that fundamental change must take place with regards to gun ownership. The senator advocates a licensing program where a potential gun owner must be licensed as well as properly trained with a firearm before they may own one.

That's where Paul would balance that out. They could find a happy medium in saying gun owners should have to be licensed and trained to carry but not own.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in any new gun laws, especially federal ones. I'm busy denying the legitimacy and effectiveness of the ones we already have! ;)
 
That's where Paul would balance that out. They could find a happy medium in saying gun owners should have to be licensed and trained to carry but not own.
Click to expand...


More guns laws is a good balance:confused:
A better balance is repealing all of the current gun laws. I like my version better:p
 
More guns laws is a good balance
A better balance is repealing all of the current gun laws. I like my version better
Click to expand...
More reasonable ones and less unreasonable ones is a good balance. Paul would likely stand in the way of any future AWB and Gravel would get rid of the gun show loophole. Paul would push for all states allowing concealed carry, Gravel would make sure that all states require people to be trained and licensed to do so.

That's a great balance to me.
 
More reasonable ones and less unreasonable ones is a good balance. Paul would likely stand in the way of any future AWB and Gravel would get rid of the gun show loophole. Paul would push for all states allowing concealed carry, Gravel would make sure that all states require people to be trained and licensed to do so.
Click to expand...


What loophole would that be? The mysterious one that the antis keep talking about? There is no such beast.
 
What loophole would that be? The mysterious one that the antis keep talking about? There is no such beast.
Click to expand...
Oh you mean the fact that a convicted felon or someone with mental illness can buy a gun at a show without a background check? Or that the same can be said for face to face transfers that don't even take place at gun shows?
 
Any licensed dealer must conduct a background check for every purchaser. A private individual not engaged in the business of selling firearms is not required to conduct a background check to sell a firearm.

None of these rules change at a gun show.

When they say "gun show loophole," they really mean "private sale loophole," and they want to force you to do all firearms transactions, even between family members, through a licensed dealer.
 
Oh you mean the fact that a convicted felon or someone with mental illness can buy a gun at a show without a background check? Or that the same can be said for face to face transfers that don't even take place at gun shows?
Click to expand...

It's not a loophole, it's the law. If you believe felons are flocking to gun shows for the great prices on guns; I've got a really cool bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.

Fact, requiring background checks for non-dealer weapon transfers will only cost the law abiding citizen. Felons will still get there guns the same way they do now, steal them, buy them from other felons, and occasionally one will slip through the crack on a background investigation. I'm not willing to give up more of a major freedom for a minor problem.
 
Any licensed dealer must conduct a background check for every purchaser. A private individual not engaged in the business of selling firearms is not required to conduct a background check to sell a firearm.

None of these rules change at a gun show.

When they say "gun show loophole," they really mean "private sale loophole," and they want to force you to do all firearms transactions, even between family members, through a licensed dealer.
Click to expand...
Thank you, "private sale loophole" is more appropriate even though many of those private sales happen at gun shows.

Yes, firearms should always be sold with background checks. Something I think Mike Gravel would push for but Paul would keep it from becoming a full licensing requirement just to own one.
It's not a loophole, it's the law. If you believe felons are flocking to gun shows for the great prices on guns; I've got a really cool bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.

Fact, requiring background checks for non-dealer weapon transfers will only cost the law abiding citizen. Felons will still get there guns the same way they do now, steal them, buy them from other felons, and occasionally one will slip through the crack on a background investigation. I'm not willing to give up more of a major freedom for a minor problem.
Click to expand...
No, not a "fact". It's a myth that everyone knows how to get a gun if they can't do so legally. Most people have no idea where to get a gun except for a gun store or gun show. And it's not just felons, the mentally kooky also apply.

You're not willing to make a small compromise in order to ensure that fewer sales "slip through the cracks" and that's why we're losing. The folks that say there should be no gun control laws are as much to blame for ridiculous gun laws as the antis because they are the ones that make the antis think "jeez, I sure don't want these rednecks to have guns".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top