Gun Owners for Ron Paul '08. Please help!!

[jtaylor]

Please visit www.ronpaul2008.com and see why you should be supporting Ron Paul!!!!! This is from his site:

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.

 

[nate45]

He's always been very pro gun rights.

Almost no one here would argue that.

The litmus test for mainstream republicans this year however seems to be whether they are pro-Iraq war or not.

For example Mike Huckabee said he could support any of the other Republican Presidential contenders (including Rudy Giuliani), except Ron Paul.

That means, Mike Huckabee would rather support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control liberal such as Giuliani than support the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment candidacy of Ron Paul.

I'm sure almost entierly due to Paul's stance on the war.

 

[Al Norris]

jtaylor, you're coming into this party just a little late aren't you?

This is all we've heard for an entire year now!

 

[SteelCore]

nate45 nailed it PRECISELY.

Gun owners who support another GOP candidate over Ron Paul care more about the US government continuing to fight wars overseas than about freedom and the Constitution here at home. The GOP mainstream is now all about pro-war, big government liberalism (i.e., neoconservatism). Many, many people have been duped by the "macho," "let's kick their asses" appeal of the pro-war position and have forgotten that being a conservative means, above all else, supporting the Constitution, small government, fiscal responsibility, non-interventionism, and upholding traditional American values as outlined in the writings of the Founding Fathers.

jtaylor, you are admittedly a little late with this, as Antipitas points out. But rest assured, many of us are very much aware of what Paul stands for. I'm with ya, bro.

 

[STAGE 2]

Gun owners who support another GOP candidate over Ron Paul care more about the US government continuing to fight wars overseas than about freedom and the Constitution here at home.

Really. So you know exactly what every republicans motivation is when they cast their vote? You can read the minds of others?

This is the kind of crap that has done Paul in. He's the only person that can save America and if your not with him you are an evil warmongering neocon.

I can't say that I've ever seen a political base with such a singleminded viewpoint. This and this alone is the reason for Paul's short lived campaign.

 

[Rogueone]

The GOP mainstream is now all about pro-war, big government liberalism (i.e., neoconservatism)

I would have thought Facism more than anything, considering the amount big business is affecting what we hear, what we see, and which politicians get the money to fund these crazy elections. You can call it neoconservatism, but just look at what Rumsfeld did with the military contracts. Big contract business taking over for civil servants (I have a friend who was a CC until he was put on a missile contract where it was the CC's versus the contractors, and the CC's where never kept in the loop. The whole thing was rigged to prove the contractor system was better, but the CC's never had a voice and were not able to do the job of keeping an eye out for wasteful spending). He's even publishing a book about experience. Suffice it to say he "hates" Rumsfeld and his croneys.

That's more of a merging of the corporate and the governmental, which would be fascism. But what right minded American would ever support Fascism? Just like no right minded American would support Socialism, the socialist have hidden themselves in the Democratic party for the past 80 years or more and have quietly and very effectively taken control of that party. The more I watch, I wonder if fascists haven't done the same with the Republican party, especially of late. If not for the religious conservatives pushing on the Republican side, I suspect that party would be as far gone today as the Democrat party is. Looking back, I think Zell Miller nailed it at the 04 RNC, the Democratic party of his youth no longer exists, and won't until the voters wake up (which we all know is unlikely unfortunately).

 

[Luke223]

"being a conservative means, above all else, supporting the Constitution, small government, fiscal responsibility, non-interventionism, and upholding traditional American values as outlined in the writings of the Founding Fathers."

Well if all this is true then who are those other guys running for president on the Republican ticket with Ron Paul? They should be starting up a new political party because they for sure are not true Republicans.

 

[Rogueone]

which is why we need to blow up this 2 party system and return to a no party system where the representatives vote their conscious, not the party line.

and we need to return the Electoral College to it's correct usage. If I'm not mistaken, each EC voter is suppose to vote how "their" group of voters voted, not based on the "state populus" total. but the parties worked together to change it such that the popular vote winner took the whole state. Look at the county by county maps of the last 2 elections, and you'll notice that if states like NY and CA were tallied based on each EC area, dems would only get about 60% of the votes from those states, not 100%. That's the system we're suppose to have as i understand it. Not the one we have now.

And as i understand it, the purpose of the EC voter was a protection for back in the day in case the EC voter felt the voters had been misinformed prior to election day, the EC could overturn their local vote in the most extreme of situations as a safe guard. When was the last time an EC voter went against the "state wide" vote?? That's not representing me if my district votes R and the state votes D, or vice versa.

 

[SteelCore]

Really. So you know exactly what every republicans motivation is when they cast their vote? You can read the minds of others?

I don't have to read minds when I can read words and hear the rhetoric that comes from the other GOP candidates and their supporters. I stand by what I said.

"being a conservative means, above all else, supporting the Constitution, small government, fiscal responsibility, non-interventionism, and upholding traditional American values as outlined in the writings of the Founding Fathers."

Well if all this is true then who are those other guys running for president on the Republican ticket with Ron Paul? They should be starting up a new political party because they for sure are not true Republicans.

They're Republicans, but they sure as hell aren't real conservatives -- at least not in the traditional sense of conservatism.

They didn't need to start a new party; they just hijacked the GOP and have steered it way off course. The GOP is no longer conservative. It's merely pro-war. This is the sole reason why Fox News excluded Paul from that pre-NH debate.

Speaking of starting up another party, I wouldn't mind seeing that happen, only I think the true small-government conservatives should be the ones leaving the GOP. Let the neocons keep it.

EDIT: For those who still aren't quite sure what the difference is between a neocon and a real conservative, here are two overviews:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservative
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html (about how the neocons got the US to invade Iraq)

 

[jtaylor]

Yes, I'm late,I'm glad there's supporters here, but lately I've seen alot of anti Ron Paul, or unawareness of Ron Paul, both at the Firing line and the High Road.
I'd like to see the moderators create an area dedicated to this specific election and allow constructive discussion and conference. Being a firearms site, it's important that we all know where every candidate stands and how they will effect the 2nd amendment as well as many other important issues.
Its rough seeing a firearm enthusiast posting about how they're supporting candidate, "xxxxxx" and clearly they aren't aware that that candidate is anti gun, anti freedom, anti rights and wants us all to trade in freedom for safety!

 

[Rogueone]

That second link is quite interesting SC.

it reminds me of a booth at my local DMV for a guy whose name I can't recall, who runs for President on the Dem ticket almost every time, starts with an L I think, and whom I thought was a Green party or such person, not a Dem. He's got a bunch of material on the Neocon, New World Order movement etc. Scariest part is, I think that article is accurate that this isn't something GW planned, but that he has simply been steered unknowingly.

Though I'm not sure I agree with that article claiming daddy Bush was an outsider, since I think he was first to call for a "New World Order" that seems like it fits with this crowd. I seem to think, either way this on goes, those people will likely be on the outside again, which would be a good thing. Heck, I wouldn't even be that upset by a Hillary or Obama win this time, if congress swings back to R control to balance their crazy agendas. (God forbid it looks like D's will get the Pres and Congress, I'll be buying guns as fast and furiously as I can before they get in. I'll be rich on the post ban sales I'll be able to do haha)

 

[STAGE 2]

I don't have to read minds when I can read words and hear the rhetoric that comes from the other GOP candidates and their supporters. I stand by what I said.

But we aren't talking about candidates, we are talking about voters. You said that "Gun owners who support another GOP candidate over Ron Paul care more about the US government continuing to fight wars overseas than about freedom and the Constitution here at home."

That means you know exactly why every voter who votes for someone other than Paul is doing what they are doing. Thats completely nonsensical.

You don't know whether someone is voting for a candidate because they like their policies, like the way they talk, or simply the way they part their hair.

This heaping dose of irony where you Paul supporters chastize the administration for being a bunch of short sighted dominating fascist neocons and then make statements like "unless you agree with me you're evil" is the icing on the cake.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

The text from Paul's website sounds pretty good, but did he actually write it?

Paul's website also leaves out mentioning his vote against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That's the law which shields gun makers from junk lawsuits that attempt to hold them accountable for the criminal misuse of their products.

Based upon that vote alone, Paul cannot be described as a friend of the Second Amendment. His assertion that the PLCAA was unconstitutional indicates that he has no real knowledge of Constitutional law.

Gun owner's who value their second amendment rights should look elsewhere for a candidate to support.

Paul’s past racist statements and apparent ties to extremist groups is another huge concern.

 

[SecDef]

Paul's website also leaves out mentioning his vote against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That's the law which shields gun makers from junk lawsuits that attempt to hold them accountable for the criminal misuse of their products.

Holy moly, is that like the tenth time you've written this in the last week? You HAVE to have it in your clipboard or something

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Holy moly, is that like the tenth time you've written this in the last week? You HAVE to have it in your clipboard or something

I feel compelled to mention it every time a Ron Paul supporter tells me that if I don't support Paul then I don't support the second amendment.

I and many other grassroots second amendment activists in Virginia (VCDL VSSA NRA-ILA) worked hard for 5 years lobbying our Reps to get that law (PLCAA) passed.

I don't recall seeing any of the current crop of Ron Paul supporters next to me in the trenches.

Now can you see why I and so many others find their rhetoric somewhat insulting?

 

[SecDef]

(this has already been discussed here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-257671.html)

The answer that STAGE 2 (why does RP believe this law was not constitutional?) was looking for was that RP believes that congress does not have the right to infringe on the 2A and his version (sans gun locks -- a limit on RKBA) would satisfy that criteria. That's why he voted the way he voted. It is the extreme position that congress cannot overstep their bounds granted them by the constitution even to defend the constitution.

Yes, RP should have definitely referenced it in his website.

However, even if RP was way off base in that vote, when weighed against the other candidates and RP's historical voting record, it is a light pencil mark, not a black mark in sharpee. It would be an error in judgement (is that law unconstitutional or not), NOT an error of not wanting to defend the 2A.

 

[J308]

Just to add a little insight on the Republican candidates, Ron Paul is not the only candidate that supports gun rights, actually, Ron Paul was the only one that didn't show up to the NRA candidate support meeting. Huckabee, Thompson and McCain support the 2nd ammendment big time!!

Want to know what they had to say? Click on the link.

http://www.nravalues.org/

 

[SecDef]

What does not showing up have to do with 2A? It just shows you what he thinks of the NRA...

From http://www.gunowners.org/op0429.htm:

EF -- There [have] been some rumors surrounding the National Rifle Association lately. Do you believe that the NRA is still an entity that defends our right to bear arms; or have they become a victim of their own success? Alex Jones recently reported that the NRA was willing to make some back door concessions pertaining to gun registration. When does it become more beneficial to a club that makes its money fighting gun laws to make sure there are gun laws on the books to fight?

RP -- That depends on their membership. They have to be awake. I don't think everything they do is bad, but I'd agree that they're weak. I agree that that's the case with my old medical association, the AMA. Went up there, working hard to pass socialized medicine, and they're a lobby now to get their fees raised. They're not a lobby up there to protect the patients through the free market, which is how I believe they would get better care. So the AMA is not very good at that, and the NRA isn't either. They get too big, too bureaucratic, but the members should say something about it.

You know, when we passed that Medicare Bill, a lot of people objected. It didn't bring the AARP down, but I think they lost, what, 60,000 members or something. So, a lot of members just flat-out quit. So, that's why, as long as there's competition in these types of organizations, then you have Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America, and the other group out of Washington [State](?). So that's what we have to do. We have to sort it out, make sure people know the differences.

I don't think the NRA will be our saving grace. Although I wouldn't argue the case they're there purposely to... I just think they're compromisers.

 

[Al Norris]

Yes, I'm late,I'm glad there's supporters here, but lately I've seen alot of anti Ron Paul, or unawareness of Ron Paul, both at the Firing line and the High Road.

Since January of 1999, there have been 753 threads were Ron Paul has been mentioned at least once. Since January of 2007, there have been 363 threads, most of which deal with Ron Paul and not just a mention. That means slightly less than half of all the threads in L&P that have something to with Ron Paul, were made in the past year.

That there are supporters of RP here, should go without saying.

As for his detractors, yes, they are here also. Been that way since day one.

Anyone who has made even the slightest attempt at looking at the past year on L&P, has seen a plethora of supporters and detractors. It is by no means, "of late," that this has been happening.

While I don't know for sure, I'd venture that similar results might be obtained over at THR.

I'd like to see the moderators create an area dedicated to this specific election and allow constructive discussion and conference. Being a firearms site, it's important that we all know where every candidate stands and how they will effect the 2nd amendment as well as many other important issues.

First and foremost, the Legal and Political Forum on TFL is the specific area dedicated to all legal and political issues of the day. Not just firearms issues. It was designed as such from its inception.

Secondly, perhaps you haven't noticed, but in every thread that has dealt with any candidate, that's what gets discussed.

Third, this is the ONLY forum on TFL where issues other than firearms may be discussed. From the Forum Description: "Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues."

Its rough seeing a firearm enthusiast posting about how they're supporting candidate, "xxxxxx" and clearly they aren't aware that that candidate is anti gun, anti freedom, anti rights and wants us all to trade in freedom for safety!

Simply because you see Ron Paul as the only viable candidate does not mean everyone else must see the same thing. Nor does it mean that everyone else is wrong. It is just as possible that you are in fact, wrong and those others are correct.

As I see it, the major problem with many Ron Paul supporters is that this is exactly the way they come across to others. There is a reason those that don't see Ron Paul as some sort of savior call some of you, "Fanatics." Could it be that that is how some of you behave?

If you wish to have reasonable discussion, then you must be reasonable in return. When you call anyone who doesn't believe in RP as you do, neo-cons (those of you that do this, know who you are), is it any wonder why RP and his supporters are called fanatics in return?

All of what I have just written can be seen by anyone who has frequented L&P since you first logged on, let alone long before this. As I said, you are coming into this a little late.

Now, having written this, I will be voting for Ron Paul in Idaho's primary, should he still be on the ticket. I will not however vote for Rudy, Mitt, John, Hillary or Barrack, in any situation. Primary or the nationals. Nor will I vote for RP should he go independent or third party, as he will have reneged on a major campaign promise.

There. I've said it, and all of you now know where I stand.

 

[SteelCore]

When you call anyone who doesn't believe in RP as you do, neo-cons (those of you that do this, know who you are), is it any wonder why RP and his supporters are called fanatics in return?

I just want to point out that neoconservatism is an ideology, not a slur (like "fanatic" obviously is). In fact, many neocons refer to themselves by that term, though others reject it.

Yes, it's an ideology I strongly oppose, and I honestly believe that Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who isn't a neocon. With no disrespect intended, I see nothing unreasonable or fanatical about this. It's just a matter of matching the ideology to each candidate.

If I or other Paul supporters seem fanatical otherwise, then I apologize. It's just that many of us sincerely believe he's the last real hope to get this country back in the right direction. I've been making an effort to make this case without insulting anyone personally or going over the top. But granted, many people will be insulted if you say that you think they've been misled or have skewed priorities.

Beyond that, I'm glad to hear you'll be supporting Paul in the primary.