Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I see two sides of this coin.





1. The strict interpretation. In this case, I don't think any restrictions should be placed on any type of weapon, including the most destructive ever created. If you can run a nuclear reactor, it should be your right. I'm not kidding.





2. The "realistic" interpretation. The Constitution was ratified in 1787 if I'm not mistaken, guns during that time took about 45 seconds between shots. The definition of "arms" in 1787 is different than the definition today. However, this is sort of legally gray because I'm not sure the ammendments were meant to be "interpreted."





Maybe the middle ground is another ammendment on what sort of "arms" are covered in the second ammendment. Of course the NRA would go ballistic.





FWIW, I have the gun safety certification and can legally purchase weapons. I'm not against all guns in and of themselves, but the gun culture does scare me a little and I think there are arms that people have no business owning.
 
<p>I just don't get the whole facination with guns in this society. I'm a military vet, too (wimpy Navy, not USMC) --- but I did get a lot of opportunity to train on and play with weapons during a 12 month rotation on the base security force (MP's) where I was stationed in Puerto Rico. I even got to level my .45 at a couple of local hoodlums in the course of arrests and such....and came real close to pulling the trigger on one guy who didn't understand our english instructions and started reaching for his waistband, ultimately to pull out his ID.</p>

<p>After those experiences, I could care less if I ever pick up another gun. There is enough risk and responsibility in daily life. Having that awesome power at my disposal is just unecessary. And with children in the house, no way. I know the NRA loves to debunk that study that said you are 3 more times likely to die by a gun if you own a gun....and while I agree that is a tough case to make, it does make some sense on how that could be true. </p>

<p>Do we really need all these guns to protect ourselves? Or are they just an accident waiting to happen? Look where we live (assuming you all are in OC). Do we really need all that protection in the Costco parking lot? If someone steps to me and wants the keys to my Accord, I'd say "have at it brother, that's what I pay Geico for!" I just heard on the news this morning that the city of Los Angeles only had 396 murders in 2007. What are there, like 4 million people in LA? What's your odds of being murdered there? And look at how crappy LA is compared to Irvine. </p>

<p>I'm not saying that CM_Dude should not have the right, I am very much a live and let live person -- so to each their own. I'm just saying I don't get why it is so compelling to so many people. Just my .02. </p>
 
<p>ck - Because a gun is the one thing that makes a weaker person equal to a bully. If you take away the weaker person's gun, you take away their ability and right to defend themselves from the bullies and the mob. You also take away society's ability to defend itself from a tyrannical government.</p>

<p>I agree with you about the car or personal property. But what if someone threatens your life or the life of one or more of your family members?</p>
 
<p>Correct me if I'm wrong but:





Regarding concealed weapons in California to be illegal it must be loaded or a concealed "concealable" weapon. For example a pistol you can "conceal" in a glove box, etc. If it is not concealed, say out in plain view in your seat and is not loaded you are in compliance with the law (as long as you aren't a felon, etc). Now if you do this and someones sees and calls the Police, I'm sure they would draw down on you to confirm it is unloaded and lecture you that only police get to carry guns, etc. With rifles, they are not concealable so you can have an unloaded rifle under your seat and still be legal also. There are exceptions to having a loaded weapon say if you are performing a citizens arrest, etc.</p>

<p><a href="http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ca.htm">crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ca.htm</a></p>
 
mediaboyz,



You are right, but cops react poorly to guns in glove compartments or on seats!



jwb - personally, I vote for the first option, but know that it will never, ever happen. So, I hope for some balance. The courts interpret the Constitution, and have chipped away at true freedom with regards to guns. I truly do hope that the US Supreme Court comes out with a clear, concise, irrefutable endorsement of true liberty with regards to fireams/arms. But the way to make that happen is to repeal, amend, or replace the federal and state statutes that have restricted gun ownership.



As for "arms" and the time frame of the Constitution's drafting - it was pretty clear that military equalled civilian militias, and therefore citizens should be armed as the military was armed. As technology has increased the lethality and efficiency of arms, the balance should remain the same. My earlier reference to cost was a nod to that factor - truly military weapons are extremely expensive, and that would limit the widespread ownership and distribution.



As for the fascination with guns - they are tools. I find them no more fascinating than a hammer. My motivation for owning them is my own, and I don't harbor any fantasies of thwarting crimes in the Costco parking lot. Some people collect Cabbage Patch Dolls or coins, some collect guns. I can tell you that quality firearms do appreciate in value quite nicely.



I lived through the 1992 riots, and a good friend called for my help to defend his home. Thankfully, nothing happened in our immediate vicinity, but we heard gunshots. There were no police. Many, many shopowners were left to defend themselves, and did so with personal firearms. There WERE NO POLICE. I take my responsibility to defend my family seriously, and I think that everyone else should as well. As awgee correctly states, a gun is a tremendous equalizer, and often is much more effective when never actually fired.
 
<p>CM_Dude-</p>

<p>I agree, licensing does open the door to government abuse of it control over who, what, and where. Fortunately, examples of those abuses provide actionable cause for taking the state to court to defend it's policy and implimentation, if one was so inclined.</p>

<p>For the record, I support gun ownership by as many people as possible. I won't go so far as to make it mandatory, but customary and socially expected would be nice. I think if the expectation was that law-abiding citizens were armed you would see a dramatic decrease in face-to-face crime; self-defense takes on a new meaning and, when death is a very real consequence, a mugger/rapist might think twice. I also think that it is appropriate to allow ownership of weapons that match the firepower of any government agency so that the framers original intent is kept intact. The military weapon of choice was limited in the 1700's and that is obviously not the case today. If my government has the firepower to kill hundreds of protesters, then I believe the Second Amendment's purpose was to allow me the same firepower to take my country back. While this may sound vaguely paranoid, so does assuming that mere possession of a military weapon infringes on one's freedom or that it will ultimately lead to mass killing. Not to put to fine a point on it, but fertilizer and heating oil has killed more people at once in the last 100 years than any automatic or semi-automatic weapon. In other words, be afraid of the intent of the person, not the existence of the weapon. Licensing and testing offer one more way to weed out those people who have bad intentions.</p>

<p>So, to recap my points here on this thread: gun ownership should be similar to car ownership; everyone should have one; Ron Paul is an idealist with zero plans to implement his return of this country to the 18th Century; and weapons aren't inherently dangerous, people are... governments more so.</p>
 
Nude,



Thanks for a fantastic summation, I couldn't agree with you more.



As for Ron Paul, I think that he is spectacularly unelectable, but I like his words on the Constitution - they are quite refreshing! Every now and then a fringe candidate comes along and reminds us that the government should be accountable to the people.



His positions on small government (eliminating the IRS, CIA, etc.) that have no follow-up or contingency are pipe dreams.
 
Unelectability is irrelevant.<p>

For some examples of armed citizenry, see Switzerland and Israel.<p>

What follow up is neccessary after dissolution of the IRS if there is no intention of collecting income tax?
 
awgee,



By follow up I mean mechanisms to collect revenue, conduct foreign intelligence, investigate federal crimes, etc.



Nude is right - we can't revert back to the level of federal government we had in the 18th century overnight. I know that I am overstating it, but there still needs to be a contemplted infrastructure for the world as Dr. Paul sees it, and I have not heard or seen any such infrastructure defined.



By unelectable, I mean able to pull in mainstream votes and win. I have listened to many of his speeches and he speaks the TRUTH about most of what he says, but we need to be able to get there (Pauls-world) from here without completely disassembling a nation now dependent on the federal government for everything.



There should be no federal income tax, no federal Dept. of Education, etc. - but there should be mechanisms in place to ensure a strong defense and national infrastructure.



Am I missing something from his platform?
 
<p><a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2007/12/30/hit_em_where_it_hurts_ron_paul_snubbed_by_fox_news_supporters_call_for_selloff_of_news_corps_stock.php">FOX News Corp Stock Taking a Beating for Slighting Ron Paul</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p><img height="288" alt="yahoo chart ticker" width="512" src="http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=NWS&t=5d&l=off&q=l" /></p>

<p>"Republican fund raising frontrunner Ron Paul will apparently be excluded from a Fox News Forum scheduled for just two days before the New Hampshire Primary. Paul’s campaign said 'According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.' The decision appears to have been made by Fox News." Some Paul supporters have called for a boycott of FOX News advertisers. Additionally, they are asking anyone who owns News Corporation stock (ticker symbol NWS) to dump it in an effort to hit the mighty Murdoch machine where it will hurt the most. Dr. Paul's supporters clearly feel that their candidate - who has broken fund raising records in recent months - is being marginalized by FOX and other media, largely as the result of a loophole in the FCC equal time laws."</p>

<p>


</p>
 
cm - I don't know of specifics, but from what I remember he says that he is not going to just dismantle things immediately and he would do things step by step. Anything else is impossible.
 
10% ?! I think that is great ! I would not have expected more than 2%. Will the MSM still ignore him? 10% ? That's great !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top