Ron Paul on Gun Control

[GADAWG]

I found this on one of his websites. This is definately the type of President we need!!

For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes.

The gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it's a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last year's hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Gun sales have gone up.

Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.

The media has not been honest in reporting about guns, especially when it comes to statistics about law-abiding individuals who use firearms to prevent or deter crimes. Many of the "assault rifles" vilified by the press are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style fully automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market.

The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.

Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best – and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms – is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond.

November 7, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

[rayray]

Very well put.

[Cesiumsponge]

I like most his other stances as well. While I don't agree 100% with everything he votes on, it is very clear that he bases his votes on Constitutional grounds and he doesn't switch back and forth on his voting to cater to his audience. That in itself is a rare trait. Most of his views are aligned with modern day Libertarianism, or the Republican party when it first emerged.

I'm relatively young, and maybe a tad foolish, but I don't remember seeing a politician of principle outside a US History book about the early days of our country.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Here are some transcripts of issues he has covered:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Here is one where he tells the UN to shove it
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul329.html

Contrary to the UN propaganda, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and, according to the drafters of the Constitution, the guardian of every other right. Scholar John Lott has shown that respecting the right to keep and bear arms is one of the best ways governments can reduce crime. Conversely, cities where the government imposes gun control have higher crime rates. Far from making people safer, gun control endangers innocent people by increasing the odds that they will be victimized!

Gun control also increases the odds that people will lose their lives and liberties to power-hungry government officials. Tyrannical governments throughout the world kill approximately 2,000,000 people annually. Many of these victims of tyranny were first disarmed by their governments. If the UN is successful in implementing a global regime of gun control, more innocent lives will be lost to public (and private) criminals.

[Striker5]

I did some research on him, he is pretty much good to go. He is basically Libertarian and thinks everything should be pushed to the states and that the Supreme Court should be forbidden from ruling on abortion, etc which is cool as Liberals adjudicate things into reality that they could never legislate into reality. He is against the war in Iraq, based on his isolationism, which kinda grates on me but I don't think he would wuss out on the war on terror as a whole. I would vote for him before any of the big name RINO's or Romney who woke up yesterday and realized he was a staunch conservative

[GunLovinTexan]

Hey hey there is solid proof gun control works. Just look at Hitler.

[graffex]

I think he seems like a pretty damn good person to be president. Only thing I see that I really cant agree with him on is he is apparently doesnt have anything against gay marriages and abortion which I take issue with but there are more pressing matters and he seems to be on the right side of the track.

[Cesiumsponge]

...I really cant agree with him on is he is apparently doesnt have anything against gay marriages and abortion which I take issue with...

Actually he has stated his personal opinions about abortion and gay marriage. He is actually against both.

HOWEVER, he is very distinct in keeping his personal beliefs and his Constitutional decision making seperate, as it should be. It seems no politicians today know how to make that type of distiction. This isn't about making America in his own image and beliefs. It's about making America run the way the Constitution intended it to run.

He has stated that these should be left to the local and state government and they shouldn't be dictated by federal government. This man's decisions ultimately come down to granting the maximum amount of liberties to all Americans, regardless of their beliefs. He wants to nullify Row v Wade for the sole purpose of putting abortion issues at the state level.

Speeches on abortion
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul84.html

Speeches on gay marriage:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

Again, you can clearly see his personal opinion on both topics (he is against both), but you can see he will NOT pass legislation that forces people on either side of these topics on a federal level because that would unconstitutional. Again, he says let local and state governments decide rather than imposing a federal will on the entire nation when clearly, there are many people that believe in either side. It's not as polarized as something like rape or murder, where 99.99% everyone pretty much agrees is a no-no.

If there was a "The Consitution" index for rating politicians, Ron would pretty much score a 100%.