Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,341 Posts
Ron Paul:

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,668 Posts
As a twat doctor, Ron was apparently reasonably competent. As a legislator, well the best that can be said is he isn't Tom DeLAy (a bug killer in real life).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Ah yes, the full story:

* Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (Sep 2007)
* Opposes the DC Gun Ban; it's not just a "collective right". (Mar 2007)
* Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
* Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)
* Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
Ron Paul:

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

...Was for the war before he was against it despite his "firm" isolationist stance.
(Because he is a politician first and a Liberal-tarian second.)

...He may be a good pro RKBA senator but that is all, and I will accept him as that.

He has some good ideas and (unfortunately) some freaking idiots for supporters that will make his good ideas secondary to the unpalatable image they create.

P.S. (hushed voice) Don't spread it around but I am told we have one or two of those supporter posting here... in this forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
...Was for the war before he was against it despite his "firm" isolationist stance.
(Because he is a politician first and a Liberal-tarian second.)
He was never for the war. He voted against the resolution to give the President authority to go into Iraq whenever he chose.

...He may be a good pro RKBA senator but that is all, and I will accept him as that.
He's a congressman..but ok.

Judging from your post of totally false claims, you are the one with a bad perception of the facts.

Also, at least one of those bills had the Pelosi compromise amendment that mandated trigger locks. The NRA supported the bill and Ron opposed it and that's why they gave him an A- or B+ or whatever it was and endorsed a liberal democrat against him for his congressional seat. Yes, the NRA supported trigger locks, Ron didn't, and that makes him somehow less supporting of gun owners' rights. This is why people are switching to GOA instead of the NRA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
Trigger locks and common sense are bad for modern liberal-tarians.

Both of these things impede working theories of Natural Selection.


Reread the crap Mouser lad has already posted and you will see another glaring contradiction.


Not really news you can use but it is funny anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
He was never for the war. He voted against the resolution to give the President authority to go into Iraq whenever he chose.


He's a congressman..but ok.

Yes, I know... and I think I would prefer him as a senator more so than a Congressman... can you figure out why young man?

Judging from your post of totally false claims, you are the one with a bad perception of the facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
He was never for the war. He voted against the resolution to give the President authority to go into Iraq whenever he chose.


He's a congressman..but ok.

Yes, I know... and I think I would prefer him as a senator more so than a Congressman... can you figure out why young man?

Judging from your post of totally false claims, you are the one with a bad perception of the facts.
You just can't face reality. Tell me, where you shot in the head during the service? Obviously you can't think straight so something happened. Maybe you fell off the back of a truck?

The federal government has no right to make me lock up my weapons, though I do anyway. I believe it says "shall not be infringed" that means, don't f*cking infringe. As long as I am not hurting anyone, or violating the rights of another individual its none of the government's business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
You just can't face reality. Tell me, where you shot in the head during the service? Obviously you can't think straight so something happened. Maybe you fell off the back of a truck?

The federal government has no right to make me lock up my weapons, though I do anyway. I believe it says "shall not be infringed" that means, don't f*cking infringe. As long as I am not hurting anyone, or violating the rights of another individual its none of the government's business.
I have it on good authority that the Federal government doesn't allow chicken hawks to own firearms... so why are you complaining?

...Now where did that bunny go?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
It's called sticking to principle, even when it's not the convenient or popular thing to do.

I note that Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America stood with Dr. Paul...



Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 9, 2003:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it.

It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country's founders understood the need to separate power between federal, state, and local governments to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to citizens. The reservation of most powers to the states strictly limited the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as alleged gun-related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.

While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval of the very nature of these suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages from gun violence should be filed against the perpetrators of those crimes, not gun manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully, and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by a criminal who stole the weapon). Clearly these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice, but by a search for deep pockets and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.

However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that guns, which are inanimate objects, are somehow responsible for crimes. HR 1036 shifts the focus away from criminals and their responsibility for their actions. It adds to the cult of irresponsibility that government unfortunately so often promotes. This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one's own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to commit a crime, such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, or baseball bats. Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not – the implications are preposterous.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or lovers of liberty.

In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,341 Posts
Also, at least one of those bills had the Pelosi compromise amendment that mandated trigger locks. The NRA supported the bill and Ron opposed it and that's why they gave him an A- or B+ or whatever it was and endorsed a liberal democrat against him for his congressional seat. Yes, the NRA supported trigger locks, Ron didn't, and that makes him somehow less supporting of gun owners' rights. This is why people are switching to GOA instead of the NRA.
Earth to Ron Paul:

EVERY SINGLE NEW FIREARM SOLD IN THE USA COMES WITH A TRIGGER LOCK, WITH OR WITHOUT PELOSI'S IDIOTIC AMENDMENT!

So what's wrong with giving up on something that doesn't exist - the right not to get a 25 cent trigger lock - to get something real, a reduction in waiting period?

This vote puts Ron Paul right in the same vaporous mental boat as Pelosi and the Liberal Democrats - it's all about appearances, feelings, not about reality.

I also dont see any comment on Ron Paul's refusal to recognize the danger of lawsuits designed not to win but to bankrupt the defendant. There are other dangers to our rights than outright bans and restrictions. To be fair Fred Thompson voted the same way, both of them believing that the right to have access to the courts trumped reality, but at least Thompson rarely deviates from common sense, while Paul makes a habit of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Earth to Ron Paul:

EVERY SINGLE NEW FIREARM SOLD IN THE USA COMES WITH A TRIGGER LOCK, WITH OR WITHOUT PELOSI'S IDIOTIC AMENDMENT!
Because that law probably past, or a similar state law did.

So what's wrong with giving up on something that doesn't exist - the right not to get a 25 cent trigger lock - to get something real, a reduction in waiting period?

This vote puts Ron Paul right in the same vaporous mental boat as Pelosi and the Liberal Democrats - it's all about appearances, feelings, not about reality.
Again, you don't have any critical analysis skills. You take everything at face value and you accept it and remain ignorant, rather than simply asking why? Why did he voted that way? As I mentioned before, a lot of those bills have leftist strings attached too them, what they call a "compromise".

I also dont see any comment on Ron Paul's refusal to recognize the danger of lawsuits designed not to win but to bankrupt the defendant. There are other dangers to our rights than outright bans and restrictions. To be fair Fred Thompson voted the same way, both of them believing that the right to have access to the courts trumped reality, but at least Thompson rarely deviates from common sense, while Paul makes a habit of it.
Common sense? Seems his record has been one of a flip-flops.
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,668 Posts
As a legislator, Ron Paul is a pretty fair twat doctor...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
As a twat doctor, Ron was apparently reasonably competent. As a legislator, well the best that can be said is he isn't Tom DeLAy (a bug killer in real life).
Ironic you pick that argument when the best argument the bush team can come up with is "He's better than gore/kerry."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Earth to Ron Paul:

EVERY SINGLE NEW FIREARM SOLD IN THE USA COMES WITH A TRIGGER LOCK, WITH OR WITHOUT PELOSI'S IDIOTIC AMENDMENT!

So what's wrong with giving up on something that doesn't exist - the right not to get a 25 cent trigger lock - to get something real, a reduction in waiting period?

This vote puts Ron Paul right in the same vaporous mental boat as Pelosi and the Liberal Democrats - it's all about appearances, feelings, not about reality.
Thank you jjk for demonstrating so succinctly why we gun owners are A-- Always on the defensive side and B-- are losing
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,668 Posts
Ironic you pick that argument when the best argument the bush team can come up with is "He's better than gore/kerry."
It isn't an argument - it is a comment. And a short-hand expression of my reactions to Ron Paul as a political creature.

As far as the "best argument Bush/Cheney had is they are better than Gore/Kerry" - well, sometimes that's the choice you get in politics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
As far as the "best argument Bush/Cheney had is they are better than Gore/Kerry" - well, sometimes that's the choice you get in politics.
But what if you didn't have to chose between the lesser of the two evils..what if an honest, humble man became President? A man who follows the Constitution and the rule of law...
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top