Gun Owners for Paul

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Dan H, Nov 2, 2007.

  1. Dan H

    Dan H New Member

    1,075
    0
    0
    Thought I would post this to inform some about Dr. Pauls position on the 2nd Amendment.

    Dear Gun Owner,

    I hope, like me, you're a strong supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    My name is Ron Paul, and I'm the only pro-gun, pro-Constitution candidate running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

    The fact is, I believe those of us who support gun rights and the Constitution need to take a stand NOW, before it's too late.

    You see, if you listen to many politicians in Washington, the gun control crowd, and their mouthpieces in the "mainstream" media, you'd think the reason for our crime problem is a lack of tough (and un-Constitutional) gun-control legislation.

    That, my friend, is NONSENSE.

    It's a lie propagated by high-and-mighty politicians who think their job is to look out for "our own good" and who think all the problems of the world would be solved if they just exerted a little more control over our lives.

    Their answer?

    Force law-abiding American citizens who want to protect themselves through more bureaucratic rigmarole and throw up more "gun free zone" signs.

    The result?

    CRIMINALS ignore those signs and "regulations" and innocent people -- who are rendered helpless by obeying the law -- pay the price!

    I can tell you from my years in Washington that some politicians just can't get it through their heads that you can't create a safe society by disarming the good guys.

    If you want a president who will stand up for the United States Constitution, and who will LEAD the fight to restore our Second Amendment rights, then I hope to earn your support.

    Many "Republican" opponents and I don't see eye-to-eye on this important Constitutional issue. In fact, some of my opponents' views are more in line with Teddy Kennedy than with our Founding Fathers!

    Well, like you, I genuinely treasure our beautiful republic, and I've always had a desire to serve our country.

    In the mid-1970s, I decided to "throw my hat in the ring" and run for Congress, because -- quite frankly -- I was disgusted with the disdain politicians from both parties had for our Constitution.

    I'm sure you know just as well as I do that it's the Constitution that protects our God-given liberties as Americans. The truth is, those politicians who seem so eager to take a match and burn this treasured document are a grave danger to us all.

    As you may have heard, I'm now serving my 10th term as United States congressman from the 14th district of Texas. That experience has taught me many things, but above all, just how valuable and important our freedoms are. I want my children and grandchildren to have even more liberty than I've been blessed with.

    But the fact is, if you and I have learned anything from past presidential administrations, and the current liberal Congress, it's that our freedoms are constantly under attack. And unfortunately, we've also learned we can't trust every politician in Washington, D.C. with an "R" next to his or her name to do the right thing.

    That's why when any politician goes on attack against our Second Amendment rights, you can be sure that I will boldly stand against them.

    As a United States Congressman, I have:

    - Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment rights to all Americans, without infringement, that have been stripped away;

    - Introduced legislation to repeal the so-called "Gun Free Zone" victim disarmament law of 1990;

    - Introduced legislation to repeal the 1993 National "Instant Background Check" gun registration bill;

    - Authored legislation to stop taxpayer funds from going to the anti-gun United Nations;

    - Opposed all gun control schemes that would register ALL private sales and mandate government "Lock-up Your Safety" devices;

    - Introduced legislation to protect American citizens' freedom to carry in our national parks.

    - Publicly Opposed legislation just this year that would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from EVER owning a gun.

    If nominated to represent the Republican Party in 2008, you can bet I'll continue to be 100% pro-gun and 100% pro-freedom -- unlike some of my opponents whose messages "get tailored" to fit the views of the crowd they're talking to.

    But more than that, I will be a leader for our Constitutional rights -- all of them -- especially your gun rights.

    That's why I am running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

    The fact is, I've never thought that standing up for the Constitution was anything to be ashamed of, but too many of our politicians nowadays care more about their hair than what is right.

    Gun control is NOT the answer to our crime problem -- and not one of our Constitutional rights is up for "debate."

    Every new restriction creates more bureaucracy that will spend more of our tax dollars and force police to waste time on paperwork instead of patrolling the streets.

    Whether you own a gun for personal protection or if you don't own a gun and just believe in the U.S. Constitution -- I hope to earn your support.
    That's why I hope you will support me in four important ways:

    First, please Sign-up for Email Alerts

    Second, I ask you to tell every pro-Second Amendment voter you know about my campaign. The fact is, maybe I'm just not enough of a left-winger for the Katie Couric and her gun-grabbing pals in the mainstream media, but I know the power of your grassroots activism.

    You know just as well as I do that this would be a far different country if it wasn't for folks like you who are willing to take action for and stand for what is right. So please spread the word to family, friends, neighbors, church members, and fellow hunters -- and people you know that just plain care about the Constitution. You can use the following text to send out an email to all your contacts.

    And third, it's not easy for me to ask, but I ask for your financial support as well. The best ideas in the world can't make a difference unless I can present them to the voters, and the fact is that will take money.

    That's why I ask you to make a generous contribution today . Perhaps you could afford a maximum contribution of $2,300 ? Or perhaps $1,000 ? Whatever you can do, $500 , $250 , $100 , $75 , $50 , or $35 will help.

    And fourth -- if at all possible -- get out and vote for me in your state's primary or caucus. To do this, you will need to check on your state's voter registration requirements. Some states may require you to change parties to vote in the Republican primary/caucus.

    With your support, I pledge to continue fighting for our Second Amendment freedoms.

    Yours truly,

    Dr. Ron Paul
    Republican for President

    Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) believes ...

    Congressman Ron Paul believes that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. It is an individual right that is guaranteed. He believes it is about the citizenry having the ability to restrain tyrannical governments and would be dictators.

    He believes the Second Amendment is about self-defense from criminal attack and from governments that break away from the chains of the Constitution.

    Congressman Ron Paul opposed the reauthorization of the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto gun ban.

    He opposes gun and gun owner registration.

    Congressman Ron Paul opposes government permission systems that force law-abiding citizens "prove" their innocence before buying or owning firearms.

    He opposes gun purchase rationing schemes, aka so-called "one-gun-a-month" laws.

    Congressman Ron Paul opposes legislation to impose so-called gun lock requirements that make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a firearm in your home for self-defense.


    As a United States Congressman, Dr. Paul has:

    Restored the Second Amendment
    Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans, WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT

    "Gun Free Zones"
    Introduced legislation to REPEAL the so-called "Gun Free Zone" victim disarmament law of 1990

    "Instant Check"
    Introduced legislation to REPEAL the 1993 National "Instant Background Check" Gun Owner Registration Bill

    UN Gun Grab
    Authored legislation to stop taxpayer funds from going to the anti-gun United Nations

    Private Gun Sales
    Opposed ALL gun control schemes that would register private sales and mandate government "Lock-Up Your Safety Devices

    Veterans Rights
    Opposed H.R. 2640 that would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to BAN U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from EVER owning a gun


    Ron Paul's Pro-Gun Legislation

    H.R. 1096 (Paul): This bill would (1) repeal the Brady law and Instantcheck Gun Owner registration system; (2) repeal federal provisions discriminating against firearms which the government determines to have no "sporting purpose," and (3) repeal the requirement that trigger locks be purchased by anyone purchasing a handgun from a dealer.

    Note: The Brady "Instant Check" is the architecture for federal government registration of firearms and firearm owners as well as the
    platform for gun rationing schemes.

    Repeal of the National Park Gun Ban H.R. 1897 (Paul): This bill would prohibit any federal regulation banning the possession or carrying of a firearm based in whole or in part on the fact that the possession or carrying occurs within a national park.
     
  2. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,643
    171
    63
    I agree with his thoughts on the second ammendment. It's some of his thoughts on national security and the war on terror that I disagree with.
     

  3. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    I don't agree with his isolationist stance, as I don't think it worked well for us in the past, but what do you disagree with him in regards to the war on terror?

    He is all for going after people who attack us. As a matter of record he just doesn't believe our military should be used in a nation building role or to promote modern day American imperalism. I don't find a problem with those stances myself.
     
  4. fallison

    fallison Guest

    895
    0
    0
    Yeah as long as they have the decency to be here. If they are somewhere else, oh well. We can't reach them. That would be entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. /sarcasm
     
  5. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,643
    171
    63
    My thoughts exactly !
     
  6. MrMorden

    MrMorden New Member

    2,598
    0
    0
    Non-interventionism is NOT the same thing as isolationism. Paul, like most true libertarians, believes in strong trade and relations with all countries that are interested in such relationships. What he does *not* believe in, is entangling alliances with foreign governments which act to subvert America's ability to act as an independent entity in any matter. He also does not think the US military should be used as a stick to bring other countries in line with our ideals. Freedom means allowing other nations to choose their form of government (and believe it or not, all governments are chosen by either action or inaction of the people).

    Paul also believes in using the military to counter-attack any foe that attacks the United States directly. For other smaller actions (say, for example, apprehending or killing terrorists that target Americans abroad), he recommends reviving the concept of letters of marque and reprisal, which is essentially like putting a bounty on somebody's head.

    I hear "isolationism" mentioned about Paul all the time, and it's factually incorrect.
     
  7. fallison

    fallison Guest

    895
    0
    0
    And his answer for those that are not interested in such relationships and instead are bent on killing as many "infidels" as possible and subjecting everyone to sharia law under a worldwide caliphate or those that support them? Oops, can't touch them. That is "entangling ourselves in other nations' affairs and "promoting a new American imperialism"
     
  8. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Ignoring the sarcasm, are you aware that Ron Paul voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force to give the president authority under the War Powers Act to find and destroy the terrorists responsible for the attack on the US on 9/11? With the exception of the homicide bombers themselves, those people were definitely not here.

    Perhaps you are talking about the war in Iraq. If so, I sure would love to read any proof you have supporting our current activity in that country.

    As Ron Paul put it in November of 2001:

    And that is almost exactly what happened. The administration settled on a group decision to cherry pick intelligence in order to present to the world that Saddam had WMDs (specifically an active nuclear program) and then tell the world that he had close ties to terrorism and would provide these weapons to these terrorists for use against the US or other western nations. And every bit of that turned out to be false. No WMDs. No smoking gun to tie him to Al-Queda and Bin Laden. Nothing. He didn't even have any of the WMDs that we sold him back in the 1980s, as these had either been used against Iran or been destroyed in the frequent UN sweeps.

    Another point from Ron Paul's November 2001 speech:

    Wow! This guy must have a crystal ball.

    And another valid point from this speech:

    Absolutely right. As of right now we are closing in on one trillion ... that's with a "T" dollars ... that has been spent on fighting in Iraq with no real end in sight. Even if the current downturn in military deaths turns out to be a trend and the military action has turned a corner, we are probably still looking at years of occupation before the Iraqi government can figure out a way to work together and take political control of the country. So, we are perhaps looking at spending another trillion dollars.

    Ron Paul also presciently stated that both Iran and Russia would be opposed to us in Iraq and we see that playing out as well. By thumbing our noses at overtures from Iranian moderates shortly after attacking Iraq, we led to the rise of Ahmadinejad.

    Moderates were willing to talk to us and had the backing of the theocracy, and we basically told them "you're next" by ignoring them. Now a hard line conservative theocrat is in office and he has the support of the theocracy. And he isn't making any overtures. On the contrary, he is allowing weaponry to be smuggled into Iraq to be used against our troops and is actively persuing nuclear weaponry.

    Russia is also falling into Cold War mode. They can not allow us to attack Iran. Yet, with the current level of saber rattling over Iran's nuclear weapons program ... a program we brought into being by our refusal to talk to the moderates who were in power ... it appears that we may either attack Iran ourselves or encourage Israel to do so with our support.

    If you were an Iranian and the US bombed your country directly or through proxy, whether you agreed with your theocratic government's policies or not, what would you do? I'll tell you what you would do. You would rage against the attack and immediately rally around your president while preparing for war.

    And what would Russia do during all of this? I doubt they would get militarily involved in a direct manner, but I can assure you they would respond.

    Ron Paul saw all of this happening back in 2001. He probably saw it happening earlier than that, as he has long advocated a policy that would remove us from being a source of provocation to the muslim world.

    I find him to be a hell of a lot more intelligent than the current inhabitant of the White House, and certainly do not want to see another person in the office that mirrors George Bush's neo-con views.
     
  9. fallison

    fallison Guest

    895
    0
    0
    WOW!! What predictive powers! Yeah, he was the only one that thought war with Iraq was on the horizon.

    That is an argument I would expest on DU or DailyKOS. The whole world believed he still had WMDs. No "cherry picking" was needed.
    http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
    As for links between Iraq and Al Queda, see http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=1

    Absolutely right. As of right now we are closing in on one trillion ... that's with a "T" dollars ... that has been spent on fighting in Iraq with no real end in sight. Even if the current downturn in military deaths turns out to be a trend and the military action has turned a corner, we are probably still looking at years of occupation before the Iraqi government can figure out a way to work together and take political control of the country. So, we are perhaps looking at spending another trillion dollars.
    [/quote:2rf4l4cj]
    The same way we still occupy Germany and Japan? How much have we spent there?

    There have been no moderates in power in Iran since Jimmy Carter turned his back on the Shah in the 70s. To blame the Ahmadinejad government on the war in Iraq is laughable on it's face.

    I don't care what an Iranian would do if we or Israel bombed them because whatever they did, it would pale in comparison to what Iran would do if allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. We survived a 50 year showdown with the USSR because they possessed a rational interest in self preeservation like us. The theocrats that run Iran do not.

    We are a provocation in the middle east simply by the fact that we exist (and have been since the late 1700s - google barbary pirates). We are faced by an enemy that believes their god has commanded them to subdue the entire world under Islamic law. That means everyone in the world either converts, pays the jizya tax, or is killed. I refuse to submit and refuse to vote for someone who will submit. Ron Paul claims to have such respect for our Constitution but has turned a blind eye to the fact that it is exactly what makes us a target.
     
  10. Bulldawg182

    Bulldawg182 Active Member

    6,127
    2
    38
    Whether or not we choose to believe it, the fact is, whether American soldiers are on the ground or not in the Middle East, we face a much greater threat to our national and international security from extremists there than Europe did from Hitler. For those among us who believe that by simply turning a blind eye towards the desert, this threat will cease to exist, I suggest you leave cookies & milk for Santa Claus and the door open for the Easter Bunny.

    Hitler's attempt at the eradication of the Jews is considered the most reprehensible act of evil that man has ever known. However, even Hitler conspired this genocide secretly and attempted to carry out his evil plan silently under the cover of night and without the knowledge of the civilized world. As sinister an atrocity as this was, he was still sane enough to realize that his actions would awaken the entire world to rise against and defeat him if he went public with his intentions..

    Today, we face an entire race....not an individual, who has astonishingly and repeatedly announced to the entire world that their their entire existence and solitary goal is the destruction of the United States of America and that killing Americans, wherever they might be, is an act to be honored and rewarded. This threat has existed long before Sept 11, 2001 and the invasion of Iraq and it will continue to exist well beyond as it is deeply rooted in religious fervor. This, my friends, is not a threat we can not afford to ignore in an attempt to avoid turmoil or by being "non-interventionary". It takes no more than listening to the recent attempt at a speech given by the president of Iran at the United Nations to come to the immediate and undeniable realization that there simply is no escaping the cold, hard truth that we cannot afford to simply come home, close the doors, turn on the TV and convince ourselves that all is right with the world. It ain't.....and the sooner we, as a nation, come to that awakening point, the better. We're in for a very difficult decade or more in human history and whether you're a sheep or a wolf, you are a target. The difference is, what will you do with that knowledge?

    While I respect Dr. Paul's stance on the constitution, and do not doubt that he could make a good President under different circumstances in a different era, this simply is not the time nor the world situation for me to be inclined to give him the benefit of that doubt.
     
  11. Dan H

    Dan H New Member

    1,075
    0
    0
    Its pretty obvious that some of you truly believe all the war propoganda from the president, the rest of the neo-cons and the media. I too used to believe this as well then I saw the other side. You have to look at the bigger picture.

    And speaking of Nazi Germany and Hitler, unfortunately there are far more similarities between our present day United States and Nazi Germany. With words like NWO that the present day presidents have spoke of. The fact that we are trying to impose our will around the world and the fact that we are making everyone out to be our enemy....

    But the biggest thing people are missing here is the fact that we are going BANKRUPT! And the fact that the rest of the neo-cons dont acknowledge the fact that we are printing money out of thin air and that that is directly responsible for inflation and the fact that it is becoming less affordable every day to live in this counrty, is a big problem! Honestly it scares me. I know the reason they do not speak of it, is because no one wants to hear the truth, they just want to hear that the market is doing well and everything will be great. But like Dr. Paul stated, "If I was borrowing $1 million every month, my finances would look pretty good too, but one day the bills will come due".

    Do you people understand that the CHINESE are investing more in our country than any other people?? This is the only reason we have not seen a monetary catastrophe in this country as of late. The Chinese are investing billions of dollars each month into this country.

    Do you all realize that our national debt of $9 Trillion is really closer to $50 Trillion? The $9 Trillion is only representative of the money thats owed on money that has already been borrowed.....

    and we accept this.....
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,189
    1,477
    113
    All us poor benighted "neocons" kind of tune out when you spout irrational statements like this. And just when you were about to enlighten us from our ignorance.

    I do not think comparisons of the United States to Nazi Germany is going to win Dr. Paul many votes this primary . . .
     
  13. Bulldawg182

    Bulldawg182 Active Member

    6,127
    2
    38
    1. I made no mention of, nor allusions regarding the current POTUS or what you term to be "propoganda" or propaganda. I stated only that for those who believe we are only targeted by terrorists because we are trying to "impose our will around the world"....you're dead wrong now and you were dead wrong when the towers came down, the Cole was bombed and countless of other attempts before and yet to come.
    2. "neo-cons"??? This topic is not a partisan concern.....it's an American concern.
    3. As for the media.....tell me you jest!!! :roll:

    1. if by "impose our will" you mean to say seek and destroy those have clearly tried and successfully killed Americans and will continue to do so with more capable weapons when technology allows, I'm all for imposing our will.
    2. "making everyone out to be our enemy"? I don't think so.....only those who who harbor, advise, finance or applaud those who have tried and successfully killed Americans and will continue to do so with more capable weapons when technology allows. Perhaps you should "look it up". I don't recall the U.S. having bombed Amsterdam or France.

    I simply refuse to dignify this statement with a reply.......SHAME!!

    Now, regarding your description of fiscal policy and the status of the economy, there's really not that much to say other than what inflation? There is no hint of inflation in our economy and in fact, the opposite end of the spectrum is the more likely candidate in recession. And, yes the market is doing well. Unemployment is under control and within historical guidelines. Interest rates are lower than they've been since before you and I were born. Is there debt? Of course, and there always has been. Is it in proportion to historical trends in time of war? Yes it is. Is it in proportion to the economical upheaval caused by the single greatest terrorist attack on this country in history....yes it is. Are there problems like health care and mortgage abuse by private banks & lending institutions? Yes, there are. And, even these are replications of historical economic crisis of the past.

    If what you're seeking is to propagate a political agenda, have at it. If you're seeking to address the threat of Islamic terrorism and who's best to defend this country against it, please do so without the rhetoric. We have far too much of that and people who choose to concentrate on party agendas and political rhetoric in the hope of gaining power and far too few who are prepared to meet the challenge at the expense of popular opinion polls and pleasing Hollywood and the media.
     
  14. Dan H

    Dan H New Member

    1,075
    0
    0
    All us poor benighted "neocons" kind of tune out when you spout irrational statements like this. And just when you were about to enlighten us from our ignorance.

    I do not think comparisons of the United States to Nazi Germany is going to win Dr. Paul many votes this primary . . .[/quote:2enjgym2]

    Im sorry you took it that way, but its a little scary when you have the leaders of our nation talking about the same things that evil dictators have talked about in the past. Another example is the national ID card... I simply stated that if you look close enough, unfortunately you will find similarities. Of course, the same can be said for many nations...

    I believe in following the constitution. I don't see how following the constitution won't win you votes...

    I do believe however that more need to be enlightened about our faulty monetary policy...
     
  15. Dan H

    Dan H New Member

    1,075
    0
    0
    Bulldawg, you stated that we are threatened by an entire race.

    So you believe an entire race wants to eliminate americans and that its not just the actions of some radicals who may not necessarily represent the thoughts of the rest of their people?

    Just curious...
     
  16. Bulldawg182

    Bulldawg182 Active Member

    6,127
    2
    38
    I can fully understand why you might be firmly in support of having illegal Mexicans, criminals, mental facility patients and dead people vote in our national elections. Sometimes, these appear to be among the most intelligent of our population! :lol: :cry:

    Now, this one......I absolutely believe to be correct! :rotfl2:
     
  17. Bulldawg182

    Bulldawg182 Active Member

    6,127
    2
    38
    You're absolutely right....I should have qualified that further. There are, among that race/religion, some who do not seek the destruction of the United States. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to separate the two! :wink:
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,189
    1,477
    113
    3%, at best . . .
     
  19. ForeverInDebt

    ForeverInDebt Guest

    28
    0
    0
    Well, if we are talking about entire races or religions, then I suppose that there are some Jews who aren't trying to destroy the US...
     
  20. ForeverInDebt

    ForeverInDebt Guest

    28
    0
    0
    I bet there are also some Japanese Buddhists who aren't going to attack us either.

    And the Canadian Wiccans, not all of them hate us either. :wink:

    Wait, nevermind, those Canadians all hate us. Let's invade and get their oil. :twisted: