USA: "NRA vs. Ron Paul"
- Thread starter cuchulainn
- Start date
- Status
Chris Rhines
Member
I'd like to know a bit more about this bill that Rep. Paul opposed. Does anyone have a reference?
I will say that if the NRA elects to oppose Rep. Paul, I'll have to reconsider my support for the NRA.
- Chris
I will say that if the NRA elects to oppose Rep. Paul, I'll have to reconsider my support for the NRA.
- Chris
rock jock
Member
I pretty much lost all respect for Ron Paul after he refused to vote on the Iraq resolution authorizing force. I knew he opposed the resolution and for that alone he would have lost my support, but not my respect. However, not voting is a weasel tactic.
BTW, Mr. Paul should remember that states rights do not trump the 2A and if can't recognize that these baseless lawsuits are nothing more than a backdoor attempt to do just that, no gunowner should support him.
BTW, Mr. Paul should remember that states rights do not trump the 2A and if can't recognize that these baseless lawsuits are nothing more than a backdoor attempt to do just that, no gunowner should support him.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
Chris R. said:
Even as a longtime (20 yr. +-) Life and more recent Patron member, I decided a couple of years ago to stop sending contributions to the NRA due to their support of "enforcing the laws currently on the books", "keeping guns out of the wrong hands", "illegal guns", "Project Exile", and constant reference to "drug dealers", etc. If they follow through with this threat, I'm with Chris - they get my cut-up card in the mail. They have been writing gun control for years. "With friends like this...?"
Legislating who can sue whom in state courts is a gross violation of federalism, IMO.
MR
Even as a longtime (20 yr. +-) Life and more recent Patron member, I decided a couple of years ago to stop sending contributions to the NRA due to their support of "enforcing the laws currently on the books", "keeping guns out of the wrong hands", "illegal guns", "Project Exile", and constant reference to "drug dealers", etc. If they follow through with this threat, I'm with Chris - they get my cut-up card in the mail. They have been writing gun control for years. "With friends like this...?"
Legislating who can sue whom in state courts is a gross violation of federalism, IMO.
MR
Augustwest
Member
From Rep. Paul's most recent weekly column:
The whole article...
Now who's a better friend of freedom, Ron Paul or the NRA?
The whole article...
Now who's a better friend of freedom, Ron Paul or the NRA?
Pendragon
Member
The NRA is not that concerned with Constitutional principles or abstract freedom.
Whether you like everything Ron does or not, he acts out of principle - and generally good principle at that.
Whether you like everything Ron does or not, he acts out of principle - and generally good principle at that.
Safety First
Member
I don't know a lot about Ron Paul,but that previous post regarding the weapons ban statement by mr Paul makes it seem as though he is highly pro 2nd and against the Automatic Weapons Ban.. I wonder why he seems to think the law suits against Arms companies should continue??? Any ideas ??
Augustwest
Member
My guess is that it has something to do with either not wanting the Legislative branch to usurp powers of the Judicial Branch, or Amendment X.
IMO, he'd be right on either count.
Doesn't strike me as an Amendment II issue, but one of Congress continuing to overstep its bounds.
IMO, he'd be right on either count.
Doesn't strike me as an Amendment II issue, but one of Congress continuing to overstep its bounds.
Chris Rhines
Member
Safety -
Ron Paul is almost as pro-gun as I am. He is certainly the most pro-gun (and pro-freedom in general) representitive in Congress. He has authored and sponsored numerous bills in Congress that would eliminate the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1934 National Firearms Act, among others.
Although I hesitate to speak for him, I strongly doubt that he wishes for the current spate of lawsuits against firearms companies to proceed.
I suspect that his opposition to the lawsuit preemption bill was because either:
- He did not want to support the precident that the Federal Government can determine who can and cannot be sued in state-level courts, or...
- He had some technical objection to some part of the bill. No way to know without finding a copy of the bill's text. Maybe there was some subsection in there that required every family to send their first-born son to the IRS for a sacrifical bonfire...
- Chris
Ron Paul is almost as pro-gun as I am. He is certainly the most pro-gun (and pro-freedom in general) representitive in Congress. He has authored and sponsored numerous bills in Congress that would eliminate the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1934 National Firearms Act, among others.
Although I hesitate to speak for him, I strongly doubt that he wishes for the current spate of lawsuits against firearms companies to proceed.
I suspect that his opposition to the lawsuit preemption bill was because either:
- He did not want to support the precident that the Federal Government can determine who can and cannot be sued in state-level courts, or...
- He had some technical objection to some part of the bill. No way to know without finding a copy of the bill's text. Maybe there was some subsection in there that required every family to send their first-born son to the IRS for a sacrifical bonfire...
- Chris
cuchulainn
Member
He doesn't think the lawsuits should continue. He's just opposed to stopping them this way.
IMO, he's wrong. These lawsuits clearly are an attempt to abuse state courts to obstruct interstate commerce. This would be one of the few legitimate uses of the commerce clause.
On the other hand, the NRA would be just plain stupid to go after him. What's the point of a public fight of that nature (beside to split the ranks)?
rock jock
Member
Principle. quid pro quo
Silver Bullet
Member
I'm hoping the NRA looks at a bigger picture than that. To oppose Mr. Paul because they disagree on just this issue seems silly. Do they only support congressmen who vote their way one hundred per cent ? Would Mr. Paul be running against someone who is even more pro-RKBA ?
rock jock
Member
Mr. Paul fails to recognize the seriousness of this lawsuit situation, and the fact that it is a backdoor attempt to restrict the 2A.
Dorrin79
Member
*shakes head*
I am actually one of Rep. Paul's constituents (Bastrop County, Texas)
For the NRA to oppose Ron Paul would be shooting themselves (and other gun owners) in the foot to an insane degree.
I never thought the NRA was particularly clever, but I never thought they were completely stupid.
Ron Paul is the only congressman I know of who supports RKBA 100%, on all fronts, with no equivocation. I can only assume (as was surmised above) that his opposition towards this proposed anti-lawsuit legislation is based in the unconstitutionality of the bill, not in the result it would have (means, not the ends). And, having read a piece over at Reason Online about this very issue, I agree with him.
For the record, I didn't agree with him about Iraq. But his stance was not an America-hating and/or pacifist one, but rather an interpretation of the non-initiation of force principle, which I interpreted differently on that issue.
I am actually one of Rep. Paul's constituents (Bastrop County, Texas)
For the NRA to oppose Ron Paul would be shooting themselves (and other gun owners) in the foot to an insane degree.
I never thought the NRA was particularly clever, but I never thought they were completely stupid.
Ron Paul is the only congressman I know of who supports RKBA 100%, on all fronts, with no equivocation. I can only assume (as was surmised above) that his opposition towards this proposed anti-lawsuit legislation is based in the unconstitutionality of the bill, not in the result it would have (means, not the ends). And, having read a piece over at Reason Online about this very issue, I agree with him.
For the record, I didn't agree with him about Iraq. But his stance was not an America-hating and/or pacifist one, but rather an interpretation of the non-initiation of force principle, which I interpreted differently on that issue.
cuchulainn
Member
Perhaps.
I understand the need for a lobby to "punish" politicians, but it seems to me that this would hurt the NRA as much if not more than Paul by splitting the ranks.
Then again, maybe this musing to Robert Novak is the NRA's "punishment" -- they've expressed their "tut-tut" to him this way, and they won't persue it farther.
And maybe the real target of this musing is other politicians who think they've got NRA support sewn up. "Hey, if the NRA considers going after Paul, can I be safe."
Pendragon
Member
There are lots of laws we could come up with that could be called "pro gun" but would be unconstitutional - even if they do tickle our inner Elmo.
We could require all children to take gun training (coercive)
We could institute an ammo welfare program to help poor shooters (adding to the welfare state)
We could stop people on the street, search them and then cite them for failing to carry a proper weapon or for not maintainint their weapon properly, etc.
Those ideas make me giggle and it would almost be worth the subversion of the Constitution to make the lefties blow a gasket but as "pro gun" as such ideas may be, they are not keeping with the spirit of liberty.
People of principle will disagree on some issues - this is to be expected - the NRA should applaud Ron Paul for voting his principled concience and not just asking the NRA for a position paper on everything. If anything, it gives us more credibility to show that not all of our players are marching in lock step.
We could require all children to take gun training (coercive)
We could institute an ammo welfare program to help poor shooters (adding to the welfare state)
We could stop people on the street, search them and then cite them for failing to carry a proper weapon or for not maintainint their weapon properly, etc.
Those ideas make me giggle and it would almost be worth the subversion of the Constitution to make the lefties blow a gasket but as "pro gun" as such ideas may be, they are not keeping with the spirit of liberty.
People of principle will disagree on some issues - this is to be expected - the NRA should applaud Ron Paul for voting his principled concience and not just asking the NRA for a position paper on everything. If anything, it gives us more credibility to show that not all of our players are marching in lock step.
Mr Paul is in a difficult situation here, because in order to remain principled, he must attempt to solve the problem of rampant Federal tyranny without becoming part of it himself. Using Federal powers in this way - even if it does curb attempts by the states to ban weapons - is in opposition to the founding principles of the Federal government.
Waitone
Member
Has anyone actually read a communication from the NRA saying it was indeed opposing Rep. Paul? I am the first to admit the NRA at times will pull a serious boner. Opposing Ron Paul will fall into that category.
Before we start the war chant and beat the war drums I'd like to see what the NRA says, not what Robert Novak claims the NRA says.
Before we start the war chant and beat the war drums I'd like to see what the NRA says, not what Robert Novak claims the NRA says.
Seminole
Member
Safety First
Member
Thanks for that post Seminole...That tells me all I need to know about Ron Paul, I feel the NRA is making a mistake opposing him. Can anyone make sense of the NRA stance ???
Waitone
Member
No one has asked what my beef is with libertarians, so I'll pontificate in isolation. What I just read from the pen of Rep. Ron Paul is a prototype of the problem with libertarians in general.
Libertarians (small L) are great at telling me that where I am now is bad. Pick a problem and they will fall all over themselves describing in great detail the evils of the way it is.
They will also provide beautiful pictures of what should be, a picture of the Promised Land, as it were. If life were just and fair and libertarians weren't being stymied by evil major parties, why the Promised land would be available for all. Milk and honey all around and on the house.
What is missing is the road map for getting from the land of evil to the promised land.
Case in point:
Libertarians (small L) are great at telling me that where I am now is bad. Pick a problem and they will fall all over themselves describing in great detail the evils of the way it is.
They will also provide beautiful pictures of what should be, a picture of the Promised Land, as it were. If life were just and fair and libertarians weren't being stymied by evil major parties, why the Promised land would be available for all. Milk and honey all around and on the house.
What is missing is the road map for getting from the land of evil to the promised land.
Case in point:
Yep, you're right. So I guess that means we just bend over and let the anti-constitutionalists have their way.
Yep again! Problem is the gun is pointed at the head of people who have nothing to do with the problem and unless someone forces the gun away. So sir, your solution to the problem is to let the perp pull the trigger. How sir would you force the gun away. BTW sir. Tort law is based in gathering those who have deep pockets. While ideally victims should sue the gangsta what pulled the trigger, the real world says you go to where the money is. Money is with manufacturing and distribution not with the gangsta. What sir would you do to encourage those who have been harmed to go after those who did the deed, not after those who got the money.
Righto! But what would you do to solve the problem? What is your practical politically oriented means of stopping an unconstitutional attack on the right to keep and bear arms? What is you solution that would be acceptable to consititutional limitations and feasible to the parties in power? In other words Rep. Paul, what is the practical application of your philosophical constructions which you so eloquently expressed?
David Roberson
Member
It's tough to figure out the NRA. Here in NC, we have an excellent statewide pro-gun group, Grass Roots North Carolina, that frequently finds itself fighting the NRA doing stupid things in Raleigh. The NRA has given highly optimistic ratings to some NC legislators who happily oppose all sorts of decent gun-law reforms. And the NRA sometimes endorses incumbents over more pro-gun challengers, with the mealy-mouthed explanation that "Well, he's going to win anyway, and if we endorse his opponent he won't listen to us any more." Grass Roots North Carolina rates candidates solely on their views on RKBA, which is why I pay little or no attention to NRA endorsements any more.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
For Pete's sake, people, pay attention. Trying to figure out why Ron Paul thinks lawsuits against gun makers should continue? When did he ever say that?
What Ron Paul believes, as evidenced by actions, not words, is that there are Constitutional principles which should not be compromised even if you think it gives you a temporary economic or political advantage. Would you support a new law banning the publication of anti-gun statements? Would you pass a law declaring that all churches and religious organizations must preach that the right to self-defense is compatible with their respective religions?
No? Well, Ron Paul does not want to remove a citizen's (or a city's, or a state's) right to go to court and have grievances addressed. He believes that creating the principle that "some people" don't really have a right to their day in court is more dangerous in the long run than allowing anti-gun lawsuits to be filed.
What Ron Paul believes, as evidenced by actions, not words, is that there are Constitutional principles which should not be compromised even if you think it gives you a temporary economic or political advantage. Would you support a new law banning the publication of anti-gun statements? Would you pass a law declaring that all churches and religious organizations must preach that the right to self-defense is compatible with their respective religions?
No? Well, Ron Paul does not want to remove a citizen's (or a city's, or a state's) right to go to court and have grievances addressed. He believes that creating the principle that "some people" don't really have a right to their day in court is more dangerous in the long run than allowing anti-gun lawsuits to be filed.
braindead0
Member
The door was opened with the 'big tobacco' lawsuits, it will continue... Guns, McD's, Mortons Salt...you name it and it'll get a big class action (or if the State's have their way, they'll get to it first).
It's all about collecting more wealth for the various State's to re-distribute amongs the welfare rolls (that includes the pork related welfare of course, which is probably most of it).
The problem is, stupid people in jury boxes (and ballot, and Judges of course).
Attempting to legislate this for the States at the Federal level is wrong, but the Feds can certainly fix the Federal courts. Perhaps then these lawsuits would never get filed, as they know once it got to the Federal level it would be thrown out.
And fixing this just for Gun manufacturers is wrong as well, what about ladder manufactuers, staple guns, paintball guns...etc...etc...
If we could just fix the idiots in the jury box, none of these things would be an issue.
It's all about collecting more wealth for the various State's to re-distribute amongs the welfare rolls (that includes the pork related welfare of course, which is probably most of it).
The problem is, stupid people in jury boxes (and ballot, and Judges of course).
Attempting to legislate this for the States at the Federal level is wrong, but the Feds can certainly fix the Federal courts. Perhaps then these lawsuits would never get filed, as they know once it got to the Federal level it would be thrown out.
And fixing this just for Gun manufacturers is wrong as well, what about ladder manufactuers, staple guns, paintball guns...etc...etc...
If we could just fix the idiots in the jury box, none of these things would be an issue.
- Status
