Ron Paul and guns?


PDA






Super Sneaky Steve
October 13, 2011, 11:27 PM
One of the mods suggested that I should start a Ron Paul discussion on gun rights. So here it is!

I think my guns are safe with President Paul. I know they have a strict policy here of only talking about guns but if you guys want to know more about Paul's positions dailypaul.com is a good source.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul and guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MtnCreek
October 14, 2011, 12:31 PM
Anyone that sees no problem with America’s enemies obtaining Nuclear Weapons is sure to allow you to keep your firearms.

Mike1234567
October 14, 2011, 12:58 PM
There's nothing not to like about Ron Paul. That's for certain. I'm voting for him this round regardless of whether or not I think he has a chance of winning. I'm darned sick-and-tired of "selling out" my vote to support a substandard candidate because I think he/she is the lesser of two evils.

Tallinar
October 14, 2011, 01:15 PM
I'm darned sick-and-tired of "selling out" my vote to support a substandard candidate because I think he/she is the lesser of two evils.

+1!

Sky
October 14, 2011, 05:59 PM
It is either Paul or Newt IMO. Paul because of his 35 years of staying on point and Newt because he has experience in the halls of government. Paul will not allow anyone or thing to infringe upon the Constitution.

The whole part of Paul's statement about Iran and nukes or nukes for anyone else needs to be considered in the whole context of his platform and then it starts to make more sense.

Complicated things can not always be covered in 30 seconds especially if you know during the debate that will be your only chance to speak.

I doubt that any President has the power to shut down 900 overseas bases unless the legislature agrees.

The-Reaver
October 14, 2011, 06:07 PM
He's got my vote.

Owen Sparks
October 14, 2011, 06:28 PM
Just Google Ron Paul and gun control to find out why he is the best 2A candidate ever. He has written extensively on the topic.

stumpers
October 14, 2011, 06:36 PM
If the Constitution is important to you, Ron Paul should be your candidate. No one else past or present comes close. This is especially true with Rep. Paul and the Second Amendment, which I know is important to everyone here, but equally as true with other issues that are just as important that have answers that can be found in the Constitution.

DoubleTapDrew
October 14, 2011, 07:35 PM
Does Paul have any chance of being the GOP candidate or is he "too extreme"? I love his position on many issues but unfortunately it's still a 2 party system and as much as I'd like a libertarian president I don't see it happening in the near future. Even though most rebublicans and quite a few democrats would probably realize their views fall in line closest with libertarians since few folks really ride the party line on all issues.

WardenWolf
October 14, 2011, 09:43 PM
In all fairness, his chances of getting elected President are smaller than a snowball's chance in hell. Everybody thinks he doesn't have a clue and isn't in touch with reality. He couldn't win against Obama or virtually anyone else.

B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian
October 14, 2011, 10:08 PM
A small compilation of Dr Paul's writings can be found here...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

I'm glad to see many on this board stand behind Dr Paul and the message of Liberty.

I can't say I'm surprised, though!

lobo9er
October 14, 2011, 10:15 PM
Ron Pauls got it right

kozak6
October 14, 2011, 10:44 PM
Ron Paul is the most pro-gun candidate in the race.

There's no possible way he will win, though.

B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian
October 14, 2011, 10:56 PM
Ron Paul is the most pro-gun candidate in the race.

There's no possible way he will win, though.
It'll be tough with 99.9999% of Washington ( R's & D's) and Wall Street against him.

Then again, all 23 of ESPN's baseball "experts" picked the Phillies to beat the Redbirds.

That's why they play the game.

mljdeckard
October 14, 2011, 11:16 PM
He is a libertarian's libertarian, and he is so strong and so principled, and he always believes that it's better to vote libertarian and lose then vote for a republican...which is why he didn't run as one to get his current office.

zxcvbob
October 14, 2011, 11:24 PM
So that means you all are voting in the primaries? If everybody waits until November, all we have to choose from is Obama and Romney.

Sky
October 15, 2011, 12:23 AM
There is still a possibility that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will run as an independent or Libertarian. If he does and splits the vote (Ross Perot) then it may not be pretty for those who would rather see someone else in the white house.

A Crystal ball that works would be nice.

Equal time for all in a debate would be nice too.

But, it is still a ways off and some of his message is getting out so anything can happen. Funny, this election I trust the bottom three more than I do the top three. Guess that is why I own the American Classic ll....seems like the older I get the more I go against the grain??

hso
November 6, 2011, 06:37 PM
I had to perform a lot of cleanup to reopen this thread.

If you want to discuss something other than Ron Paul's position on the 2A (which we all know already) don't post.

KAS1981
November 6, 2011, 07:09 PM
1) It's not a "two party system", it just seems that way.

And,

2) Ron Paul is a Republican.

Konstantin835
November 6, 2011, 07:50 PM
Ron Paul is a great candidate. He is easily the best candidate with regards to the 2nd amendment. Sadly, I don't think he can win. I think he would be a great president and I would trust him with the 2nd amendment more than any other candidate. If you want Ron Paul in the general election, don't just talk about it, vote in the primaries of you're a registered republican. If his poll #s increased it might get his message out and I think if his message was heard people would support him, and that would be good for the 2A.

Super Sneaky Steve
November 6, 2011, 08:35 PM
You guys who say he can't win need to stop watching the talking heads on TV. Who won the California straw poll? Who won value voters poll? Who just won the Ohio poll? Who won the CPAC poll?

RP has more individual doners than anyone, it's just that big banks dont' back him. The people do. His largest doners are the Air Force, the Navy and the Army.

Pro 2A people love him and he's got a great chance. With a solid 3rd place nationally and with the Cain scandal breaking it looks like he's going to be 2nd real soon and eventually first.

henschman
November 7, 2011, 06:54 PM
How many other top tier contenders for the Presidency have ever had the cojones to come out and flatly state that the prime reason for the right to keep and bear arms is to protect ourselves from tyrannical government? How many have stated that 9/11 only happened because of our lack of support for the Second Amendment in not allowing airlines to arm their crew? I'm not aware of anyone else. All the other guys just see the 2A as a talking point to score points with certain demographics, and they just throw out a few pro-gun soundbytes here and there to throw us "gun guys" a bone. Dr. Paul on the other hand actually has a principled stance on this issue and has held firm on it since he first got elected to the US House back in 1974.

The trouble is, he is such a humble guy... he hates to brag on himself, but he really needs to. People need to know this stuff, like how every quarter this year he has consistently gotten more donations from active duty military than all the other candidates combined. People think his foreign policy is off kilter? Well how come his biggest support comes from the people who are at the pointy end of our foreign policy and are in the best position to see what its consequences truly are?

Not electable? You do realize that a huge margin of Independent voters are very fed up with Obama, as are many anti-war and pro-civil liberties Democrats, who are hoping for ANYONE they can feel good about voting for? Ron Paul has always attracted the independent vote like no other GOP candidate has, and they are the ones who swing elections. And it wouldn't take that many defecting Democrats at all to really nail Obama's coffin shut.

Who I think is unelectable are the big-gov't neo-cons and RINOs. I know lots of people want Obama gone, but I have talked to a lot of other Republicans who are flatly refusing to vote for another RINO just because they look like the lesser of two evils. And you can forget about getting the independent vote or the Democrat vote.

SN13
November 7, 2011, 07:44 PM
Everytime you vote for Candidates like McCain in hopes that he has a better chance of winning versus Obama over people like Paul and Cain, you are basically saying "Hey GOP, I want a guy like McCain."

I'm 28 and am already sick of selling out my vote to Bush/McCain types over real, true Representatives of my own views. I will not vote for anyone but the true person I'd like to represent ME, regardless of how poorly he fares against Obama and the Dems.

archigos
November 7, 2011, 07:57 PM
I get the impression that Ron Paul gets it regarding guns. Too many "pro-gun" candidates come out with statements like "we need to protect the rights of our hunters and target shooters" and just don't understand why the RKBA is a basic human right.

Sky
November 8, 2011, 01:47 AM
Seems like the same old thing year after election year just different labels of the same stuff that has gotten us to where we are today. 2a, appoint a Supreme Court nominee who believes in the constitution, get rid of redundant agencies and balance the budget...Yep he is crazy.

If he does win there will be screaming like a stuck pig from those who know better than that old piece of paper the country was founded upon.

hso
November 8, 2011, 07:42 AM
There's no need to wonder or guess what Ron Paul's position on the 2A is. He has made it crystal clear in word, writing and action that he is a strict Constitutionalist supporting the individual right to own and carry firearms.

Stevie-Ray
November 9, 2011, 02:32 PM
1) It's not a "two party system", it just seems that way.

And,

2) Ron Paul is a Republican.
Not eactly. It is a 2 party system as far as the majority of Americans are concerned, unfortunately. Ron Paul realizes this and runs now as a Republican. But he is definitely a Libertarian. He is also our best hope, but sadly again, he won't get the nod.

BaltimoreBoy
November 9, 2011, 03:16 PM
If you think about it, Paul is the only candidate you can trust with 2A rights.

The reason is he is the only candidate that has a principled position - on everything.

Remember how Bush41 turned. Remember how Bush43 would have signed extensions to some of the Clinton era laws. He was not a friend of your 2A rights - he was just not an active enemy.

Your other candidates - Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, or whoever - can and will negotiate 'reasonable' gun control if or when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

They will reason: "These guys have nowhere else to go". Like George H.W. Bush they forget that there IS one other place we can go. When election day comes, we can go home.

Since Paul's position is not something 'adopted' for a campaign his position will not change. If congress should pass some outrage, I would fully expect him to do as Jefferson with the Alien and Sedition act - refuse to enforce it.

Tallinar
November 9, 2011, 03:33 PM
He is also our best hope, but sadly again, he won't get the nod.

I hate comments like this with a fiery passion. It is amazing to me that SO many people out there make these despairing comments, all the while apparently not realizing the fact that they actually collectively form a MASSIVE candidate base if they'd only stop subscribing to the idea that a candidate is "unelectable."

Wake up folks! Ron Paul is a completely viable candidate. He continues to win state straw polls (odd though it is that you rarely hear about them on the mainstream news). Don't let the media's attempt to ignore him sway you. This whole concept of "electability" is total buzzword hogwash made up to tell you that you can't have a candidate who will radically address root problems in this country and truly standing fast for the Constitution.

If you believe in a candidate (Ron Paul or otherwise), stop selling out to the mindset of "Well, he is just so correct about things that the nation would never elect him." You are the nation! If you believe in a candidate, VOTE HARD! Educate those you deal with on a daily basis. Make it happen! You do *not* need to settle on a run-of-the-mill status quo candidate just because "he's better than the current guy."

Sorry for the rant, but I had to get it out there.

zxcvbob
November 9, 2011, 06:29 PM
If you believe in a candidate (Ron Paul or otherwise), stop selling out to the mindset of "Well, he is just so correct about things that the nation would never elect him." You are the nation! If you believe in a candidate, VOTE HARD! Educate those you deal with on a daily basis. Make it happen! You do *not* need to settle on a run-of-the-mill status quo candidate just because "he's better than the current guy."

You can't wait until November if you want any chance of a real candidate (not even a slim chance.) You gotta vote in the primaries.

henschman
November 10, 2011, 01:37 PM
And not just the primaries, you need to get involved in the campaign BEFORE the primaries. You only get one vote yourself, but you can help influence others to vote your way by donating to the campaign, volunteering to help with phone banks, making signs, going to party meetings and getting involved in your county GOP, etc., those are the kind of things that win primaries and elections.

If you are looking for something to do but don't know what, go to www.meetup.com and search for Ron Paul groups close to you. Go to a meeting and get plugged in. A candidate doesn't need the attention of the mainstream media if he has a huge base of grassroots support.

Tallinar, I couldn't have said it better myself. Lots of modern Americans like to lament about a lot of things about this country but don't ever actually do anything about it, and keep voting for the same idiots that take us further down this road because they are "electable" (according to the media).

Super Sneaky Steve
November 11, 2011, 07:33 PM
I found this pic of RP's pro gun flyer.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/RP-Gun-SJim.jpg

I think I'll buy some and pass em out.

DJW
November 11, 2011, 08:20 PM
Have liked Ron Paul for a long time. Was happy to see him last Sunday being interviewed on TV. He held his ground and refused to support other candidates who are for more taxes, bigger government, and foriegn wars. He was actually quite animated and showed some "charisma." This being a quality he has often been critized for lacking. He is our only hope for an economically viable nation. Sure stands out in a crowd of idiots like perry, and fools like obama.

Ben86
November 11, 2011, 11:36 PM
In my opinion to sum up his position, and many of his positions, he wants the government to just leave people alone about it. Let people be to enjoy their 2nd A rights. I can't argue with that.

langenc
November 11, 2011, 11:56 PM
The crazy statement taht "he is not electable" has been out there since day one.

It is promoted by the media and many believe it. That is the only reason why it could be true. Many dont want to "WASTE THEIR VOTE" and believe the TV etc.

Who would you really vote for-without holding your nose.

OR Id like to ask the naysayers- "who have you ever voted for"? Rather than voting for someone when your vote was really a vote AGAINST someone else--ie MCcain, 2x for Bushes, etc etc.

Owen Sparks
November 12, 2011, 01:13 AM
Ron Paul is the only professional politician I can vote for without holding my nose.

BeerSleeper
November 12, 2011, 08:01 AM
I'm glad I read this thread. I've heard of Ron Paul before, but never really took the time to "listen" to him. This guy is just what we need, just when we need it. There's a page on his website http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ that spells out where he stands on the major issues, and he's exactly in line with my opinions on these things. I think I've found my candidate.

For the last several elections, I've limited my choices to one party or the other, because "I'm just throwing my vote away" to vote for the third guy. Settling for the "least crappy choice" is still settling for something crappy, and I'm done with it. I hope he wins the primary, and failing that, I hope he runs in the general election anyway.

csa77
November 17, 2011, 10:24 PM
ron paul is a libertairian ... of course he suppprts the 2nd amendment. he supports it far more then anyone who has ever ran for office.

hso
November 17, 2011, 11:04 PM
My former boss and I had this conversation today and we ranged from Ron Paul can't be elected to his being the only one desirable to voting for one or the other of the major political party probable candidates, in the absence of RP, was like throwing the vote away.

I pointed out that if you thought you were throwing your vote away anyway at least "throw it away" on the candidate you respect.

Super Sneaky Steve
November 17, 2011, 11:15 PM
My former boss and I had this conversation today and we ranged from Ron Paul can't be elected to his being the only one desirable to voting for one or the other of the major political party probable candidates, in the absence of RP, was like throwing the vote away.

If RP can't win ask your boss why he's won the following polls:

CPAC, Phoenix Tea Party, Sacramento RLC, New Orleans RLC, Clay County Iowa, NH Young Republicans, Cincinnati Tea Party, California, Values Voter, RPLAC, Charleston County, Columbus, Des Moines Tally 1, Des Moines Tally 2, and (most recently) Illinois.

Actually he's won a few more since this list was made.

He's also tied for number one in Iowa right now. For a guy that "can't win" he sure does win a lot!

It's also important to note that RP's support only grows. It never shrinks.

Lunie
November 17, 2011, 11:35 PM
Ron Paul is an excellent candidate, and is THE single best candidate from a THR (2nd Amendment, firearms in general) standpoint.

Not only do I not have to hold my nose come the Primaries (and the General election), I dare say he will be the first candidate I've really wanted to vote for.

230therapy
November 17, 2011, 11:44 PM
Ron Paul clarifies his position in Liberty Defined. The quick summary is: 1) gun free zones don't work and 2) the Second Amendment is about deposing governments, stopping invasions, and personal protection. He supports using guns against governments when necessary.

Lunie
November 17, 2011, 11:51 PM
http://www.gunknowledge.com/Ammunition/Headstamps/American/Remington/index.html
http://www.gunknowledge.com/Ammunition/Headstamps/American/Remington/A_Rem_3006.jpg

I think this should make it easy to remember just WHO to cast your vote for next spring and next November.

R-P now represents Ron Paul. ;)

(Special thanks to Remington Peters for producing so many useful electioneering devices!!!)

230therapy
November 17, 2011, 11:52 PM
Sigh.

Another "throwing your vote away" argument. It is a lie intended to deceive the foolish. John Quincy Adams knew more about this any anyone who ever made such a fallacious argument. We are in this situation because people have not followed his advice:

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

boatmanschneider
November 19, 2011, 05:03 PM
He has my vote.

AlexanderA
November 19, 2011, 05:57 PM
Vote strategically. That is, vote for the most pro-gun guy who has a realistic chance of getting elected. Unfortunately, that leaves out Ron Paul. We may not like it, but that's just the way the system is. If you don't vote for the most pro-gun guy who has a realistic chance of getting elected, then in effect you're voting for the other guy who has a realistic chance of getting elected (the most anti-gun guy).

zxcvbob
November 19, 2011, 06:07 PM
He has my vote.

John Quincy Adams is dead :rolleyes:

Lunie
November 19, 2011, 06:10 PM
Vote strategically. That is, vote for the most pro-gun guy who has a realistic chance of getting elected. Unfortunately, that leaves out Ron Paul. We may not like it, but that's just the way the system is. If you don't vote for the most pro-gun guy who has a realistic chance of getting elected, then in effect you're voting for the other guy who has a realistic chance of getting elected (the most anti-gun guy).
Don't be ridiculous.

All of the candidates are so close right now it isn't funny.

Vote your conscience. Pick the candidate you want and vote for them. Never fear, the hordes of Republican voting zombies will still vote for whoever gets nominated. Might as well pick one we like for once!

Owen Sparks
December 6, 2011, 12:32 PM
I went to see Ron Paul speak back in the Spring. The thing that impressed me most was the audience. The vast majority were young people in their 20's and 30's. The future for the liberty movement (and gun rights) looks bright because practically every sucessful political movement starts with the young. The typical Ron Paul supporter believes in a literal translation of the 2A and that the federal government should have no power over private ownership of firearms.

7thCavScout
December 6, 2011, 01:13 PM
There's nothing not to like about Ron Paul. That's for certain. I'm voting for him this round regardless of whether or not I think he has a chance of winning.

+1 here my friend! Ron Paul 2012!

Bob M.
December 6, 2011, 01:33 PM
Another for Ron Paul in 2012 here!! :)

mljdeckard
December 6, 2011, 01:38 PM
I think that any of the republicans running will do a much better job than who we have now. I can get behind any of them if they get the nomination. Romney is a 'born again' gun person, but I think he has been sufficiently conditioned as to not throw gun rights under the bus.

I'm not as sold as everyone else here on Ron Paul. I think if his principles were as strong as he insists they are, he wouldn't have run as a republican at all. He would have stayed libertarian. I think he is as flexible as he needs to be. And his foreign policy ideas frankly give me the willies. I think if he gets elected, he will take a MUCH different position than he has professed in the campaign. And regardless of JQA's advice, I won't take any comfort AT ALL in knowing that the vote was split and Obama won again. I would rather pick the candidate that is 80% of what I want and wins, than the one that is 95% of what I want and loses.

A lot can happen in the next few months, but right now I can't see him getting the nomination. A lot of it is not his fault. He comes off as shrill, his tone always sounds like he is doing this high-pitched shout. He always sounds desperate. A lot of what he is discussing sounds more extreme than it is just because of how it is presented. People aren't ready to hear it. And I'll be perfectly honest, it would make me feel warm and gooey inside to see Newt debate Obama.

average_shooter
December 6, 2011, 02:02 PM
I would rather pick the candidate that is 80% of what I want and wins, than the one that is 95% of what I want and loses.

Of course the problem with that is over time 80% of 80 of 80% etc. and you get what we've got now, voting for the person that's 3% what I want over the person that's only 2%. At some point it doesn't matter if it came from a donkey or an elephant, it all smells the same.

I don't believe anyone can really dispute Ron Paul's record over his entire career, yet you can see Romney has done a virtual 180* switch. Remember, a person that turns on his own to win your favor can and will just as easily turn back on you again when it suits him.

mljdeckard
December 6, 2011, 02:23 PM
No, I absolutely do not have 80% of what I want now in a president. And remember, if O gets re-elected, that leash of feared election backlash will be off, there will be nothing stopping him from directing BATFE from gutting all the policy he can for gun rights. Not a win. If your candidate doesn't win, you get ZERO.

I know you guys think Ron Paul is the Messiah. But remember, even if he DOES win, it's not like he can automatically implement everything he talks about. Just like O couldn't get everything he wanted either.

clay3488
December 6, 2011, 02:31 PM
Paul is a diehard constitutionalist. If you believe in the Second Amendment, Ron Paul is your man. He's got my vote.

tuj
December 6, 2011, 03:40 PM
I like Ron Paul. I think he's smart and articulate. But he's just so darn crazy and misguided when it comes to central banking and the fed and the 'gold standard'. I can't get past those problems. Backing our currency with a volatile commodity would be just insane. And really if you had to have a commodity to back your currency, better to use something more rare than gold.

henschman
December 6, 2011, 04:14 PM
All the pro-establishment media jackholes keep saying "Ron Paul's support will top out, he doesn't appeal to a broad enough base," and yet his poll numbers just keep going up as more people learn about him. The most recent poll now has him at #2 in Iowa behind Newt, and beating Romney.

The way I see it, if the manipulators in the MSM don't like him, that is a pretty good indicator right there that he must be a pretty decent guy! Plus the fact that he has stood for the same principles for 30 + years. He may have ran as a Libertarian and then as a Republican, but his principles have never wavered. For him it is all about finding the most effective way to get his principles implemented.

And a true constitutionalist pro-gun president could do A LOT unilaterally for gun rights. For one thing he appoints the head of the ATF. Just think what a pro-liberty ATF chief could do! We all know that a lot of the most recent threats to gun rights have been not from Congress, but from administrative regulations passed unilaterally by the ATF... like requiring reporting of multiple long gun sales in the SW and making arbitrary calls on what foreign-imported firearms are for a "legitimate sporting purpose," like when they ruled to cut off importation of the Saiga shotgun. A truly pro-gun president with some balls could make all that go away post haste.

And then there is the whole situation about the State Department shutting down the re-importation of M-1 battle rifles from Korea for sale on the US market... you know stuff like that would be lifted under RP. Under the other candidates? Who knows.

You have the Department of Defense not selling surplus ammo on the civillian market anymore... RP would make that stop.

So even if Congress isn't on board, there is a LOT a good pro-liberty president could do by himself, on the gun issue and lots of others.

mljdeckard
December 6, 2011, 04:48 PM
And remember, this works both ways. If Obama wins, he could do just as much DAMAGE.

I like him just fine, and if he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him. But he will do less to attract the independent voters than other candidates will. again, not his fault, he just comes off as shrill.

Strykervet
December 6, 2011, 05:54 PM
Not eactly. It is a 2 party system as far as the majority of Americans are concerned, unfortunately. Ron Paul realizes this and runs now as a Republican. But he is definitely a Libertarian. He is also our best hope, but sadly again, he won't get the nod.
He won't get the nod because he REFUSES to run independent!!! Make me mad. He claims the party should be a vehicle to the position and nothing more. Great, I believe that too, but when you have to run in a primary against super right crazy agenda republicreeps, you don't stand a chance of them picking you as their guy.

He needs to run independent. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, but to be honest, I can't sell out the rest of the nation, Bill of Righs, and Constitution in general over just the 2A and vote for the other clowns.

Basically, for me, it boils down to either voting Obama out in leiu of Paul, but if Paul isn't the guy, my vote is for Obama. On the other hand, I also believe in voting out incumbenets in the house and senate, and I beleive in keeping them divided too. If you have an all democrat house and president, you get gun control and a bunch of other trash. If you get all republican, you give up everything to big business and not only does the public get to pay for it, they get made to feel the crisis is their fault and that taking any public funds is bad (while banks get all the public funds).

The goverment is broken, and we'd be best off to keep it divided at this point. Then we can hope they will agree on the important things and the ideological things will be just too damn hard to get through and so they'll fall by the wayside.

So for me, it is Ron Paul and democrat congress critters. Or Obama and republican congress critters. But I can't live with myself picking the better of two evils with no actual plan as to what I want out of governement.

Ron Paul says some crazy things too. Like killing social security and VA disability checks. I depend on those, and I'd still vote for him because I know that it would be impossible for him to pass any of that with a divided house and senate.

Finally, to be honest, Obama hasn't been the anti gun president I thought he would be. I voted for him myself, heck, I even wrote him a letter asking him to run after the speech he delivered at the DNC. I knew he wouldn't be able to pass another ban like the last one given the climate, and he seemed fresh, but he let a lot of us down. He's better than Bush, at least I don't feel like throwing up when I see his picture or hear him talk or feel bad about America because a word salad fall out of his mouth every time it opens, but I still feel like I got shafted.

I think it is time to give Ron Paul a chance. Also, Obama has a VERY high chance of being re-elected given his competition. Bear that in mind, mark my word, you put him up against these clowns and he will make mincemeat out of them. The man is the best orator since Adolph Hitler and Winston Churchhill combined, and maybe better. But you run Ron Paul against him, and all the folks Obama has done wrong by or let down will likely vote for Paul. But you pick the Grinch, and every single one will vote for Obama, hands down. The democrats, they hate that man worse than they hate being let down by their own.

Get all your republibuddies to primary Ron Paul in, and I gurantee you a LOT of folks that would ordinarily vote for Obama would vote for Paul. Pick a loose cannon, idiot, or clown and you'll get "four more years". Be wise, we could have someone who has a record that he stands by (good and wrong) and isn't a sellout.

This could be a big swing race. See, my extended family is about 300. Almost all said they would vote for Paul, but if it comes down to Obama vs. Gingrich, they'll almost unanimously vote for Obama.

Just my 2 cents, but I think there is much more at stake than 2A this time. Much more. It just seems to me if we get Paul, we might be able to have our cake and eat it too. They guy said so much that he would support 2A, end the drug war, end the mideast wars, and kill the "un-patriot" act. To me, if the man follows his words, is THE president this country needs. Not to mention he is very open to working with both parties equally.

We could have a government that works again. Makes me want to sign up as a republicreep just so I can vote in the primaries.

OldMac
December 6, 2011, 06:39 PM
It is a simple choice. He will preserve our God given rights. These were not given by man to be taken away or regulated away by man. That is what he believes so he will not be swayed to nibble around the edges of the 2nd amendment under the guise of security. If you vote for a "lesser evil" because you think they are more marketable in the biased media, then you are throwing away your vote in hopes that we erode our liberty slower than the current pace.

mljdeckard
December 6, 2011, 07:22 PM
Slower is better. It's a question of HOW MUCH slower. You seem to think that Paul could take office and just start issuing orders and changing things. He is only as effective as the congress that gets seated.

And I don't think you are giving the other candidates enough credit, like they are all just as bad as what we have. Not even close. the most iffy one is Romney, and I think that even he would be very careful in the current climate and err on the side of gun rights. I think that there is very little difference between what Ron Paul is actually able to do and what the other candidates WANT to do.

Dan Forrester
December 6, 2011, 08:18 PM
I think that any of the republicans running will do a much better job than who we have now.

I completely disagree. The differences between Obama and the other republicans are so trivial that they are non existent. It’s the same pointless wars with no objective and no end, same debt, same ponzi scheme social security BS, same corporate state merger (fascism), same failed war on drugs, same money printing, same healthcare industrial complex, same highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. I would honestly rather see Obama serve another 4 years than Gingrich or Santorum or for that matter any of them other than Ron Paul.

To me Ron Paul is the only one who supports the second amendment from a philosophical standpoint. The others support the second amendment because it is politically expedient and will turn their backs on it just as fast.

And as for Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVtpmo0KSM

Dan

mljdeckard
December 6, 2011, 08:35 PM
You are both generalizing and demonstrating a failure to have heard what their plans are for any of these issues.

codeIII
December 6, 2011, 08:51 PM
Ron Paul 100%.
Semper Fi!

telomerase
December 6, 2011, 10:04 PM
According to the recent polls, Ron Paul has a better chance of winning against Obama than Newt "Freddie Mac" Gingrich or Willard "Goldman Sachs is my biggest donor" Romney.

As far as guns go, I've known Ron since 1988. He's 100% pro-2nd Amendment.

jlott00
December 6, 2011, 10:35 PM
In all fairness, his chances of getting elected President are smaller than a snowball's chance in hell. Everybody thinks he doesn't have a clue and isn't in touch with reality. He couldn't win against Obama or virtually anyone else.
Ron Paul is the most pro-gun candidate in the race.

There's no possible way he will win, though.
Sadly, I don't think he can win.

its amazing how they can repeat this on the mainstream over and over and some people are not strong enough to fight it.......its called "self fulfilling prophecy"...... Good news is a lot of people are waking up and using alternative media and the internet and actually deciding for themselves..

RP2012!!!!!!*+*+*+*+*++*+*+*

hso
December 11, 2011, 06:48 PM
Since Ron Paul's unwavering support of the 2A is well known and too many people want to discuss other topics there's no point in leaving this open for the non-2A discussion.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul and guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!