Thread: What are the facts on Ron Paul?

shall not be infringed.

[quote=Once_A_Democrat]

Originally Posted by "Enchilada_Non_Grada":1d3smtyt

That whole laundry list you posted is a load of BS. It's just cherry-picking certain votes without any explanation. If you look into each vote, you will find that Paul votes based strictly on the Constitution.

For example, your laundry list of supposed "unconservative" votes includes: "Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1."

That's because Paul is against ANY FEDERAL LAW imposing waiting periods. Such laws are totally unconstitutional! He would not have voted for the 3-day ban in the first place. Paul makes votes like this because the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to impose ANY waiting period for gun ownership.

Every single one of those so-called anti-conservative votes is conservative, if you actually look into it. I could go down your whole list and blow every single point you made out of the water.

Your whole list is nothing but cut-and-paste cherry picking randomly off the internet, and frankly, I find it dishonest. Did you research any of these votes before trying to smear Paul here?

"ANY FEDERAL LAW imposing waiting periods. Such laws are totally unconstitutional"
Where in the Constitution?[/quote:1d3smtyt]

The funny thing is, you just answered your own question.

And by the way, it's totally laughable that the OP would try to smear Ron Paul on gun rights, when he has never, ever voted for ANY restriction on gun rights. Paul would not even restrict machine guns or bazookas! He's far to the right of the NRA.

I think any of these gun laws that infringe need to go to the supreme court

I think they would be overturned like the one in DC will be

The San Fran ban I think has already been thrown out

Originally Posted by Enchilada_Non_Grada

That whole laundry list you posted is a load of BS. It's just cherry-picking certain votes without any explanation. If you look into each vote, you will find that Paul votes based strictly on the Constitution.

For example, your laundry list of supposed "unconservative" votes includes: "Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1."

That's because Paul is against ANY FEDERAL LAW imposing waiting periods. Such laws are totally unconstitutional! He would not have voted for the 3-day ban in the first place. Paul makes votes like this because the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to impose ANY waiting period for gun ownership.

Every single one of those so-called anti-conservative votes is conservative, if you actually look into it. I could go down your whole list and blow every single point you made out of the water.

Your whole list is nothing but cut-and-paste cherry picking randomly off the internet, and frankly, I find it dishonest. Did you research any of these votes before trying to smear Paul here?

your point demonstrates Ron Pauls complete inability to compromise with those who have different views as him. If he can't get his way 100% then he gets 0% because he refuses to compromise. We deffinitely don't need someone who can't compromise with his opponents as our president because then we won't get anything done.

Originally Posted by Enchilada_Non_Grada

And by the way, it's totally laughable that the OP would try to smear Ron Paul on gun rights, when he has never, ever voted for ANY restriction on gun rights. Paul would not even restrict machine guns or bazookas! He's far to the right of the NRA.

You've got that right!
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm

Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following:

the Brady law;
the requirement to lock up your safety (guns);
the law permitting the US to be part of the UN (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transfered firearms);
participation in UNESCO -- which has been used to dumb down US education standards;
the federal prohibition on importation of guns on a sporting basis test;
federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and,
the so-called "assault weapons" ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).

The Gun owners of America have given Dr. Paul an A+ rating. You can't beat that. Feel free to disagree with him on other issues but when it comes to staunch defense of the 2nd Amendment he is tops. The NRA knocks him down cuz he doesn't sell out to the gun lobby.

Originally Posted by usanevada

I think any of these gun laws that infringe need to go to the supreme court

I think they would be overturned like the one in DC will be

The San Fran ban I think has already been thrown out

Funny you mention the Supreme Court I know a hunter who votes for democrats and his view is the same. He will vote for Boxer or Fienstien with the logic that if Congress passes legislation to ban guns the Supreme Court will overturn the legislation. In other words he votes in the gun control lobby, because he likes other issues with democrats, with the hope that Gun Owners of America or other groups will sue and win in court. We've had some interesting conversations to say the least both of us are short tempered with the topic!

Individual responsibility means you take the responsibility to vote in the people with Constitutional credibilty so that "you" do not have to depend on other organizations to sue for your rights!

Originally Posted by slyhunter

your point demonstrates Ron Pauls complete inability to compromise with those who have different views as him. If he can't get his way 100% then he gets 0% because he refuses to compromise. We deffinitely don't need someone who can't compromise with his opponents as our president because then we won't get anything done.

As President, Ron Paul would VETO ANY gun legislation from the congress and would appoint judges who would eviscerate all the unconstitutional laws already on the books, so what is your point? You would rather that he throw the Constitution down the laundry chute like all the other politicians do? If you're not willing to stand up for an honest politician, then you have already given up on this nation.

Well put Enchilada, I must say that you Paul supporters come complete with backbones.......straight ones at that.

"I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces from within." General Douglas MacArthur

Originally Posted by roundabout

Well put Enchilada, I must say that you Paul supporters come complete with backbones.......straight ones at that.

"I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces from within." General Douglas MacArthur

Ron Paul supporters have usually done their homework too.They know the issues,have researched them so it is difficult to try and pull the wool over their eyes as this thread seemed to do from the get go.

They have done the research and that is why they support RON PAUL.

IMHO.... She was aking for input on finding out if it was true or not and you have helped with that , but why are you saying she tried to pull the wool over our eyes we are not idiots that can't research ourselfs we just like some help sometimes. Isn't that what ALIPAC is for ???