Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Ron Paul introduces pro gun legislation. >

Ron Paul introduces pro gun legislation.

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Ron Paul introduces pro gun legislation.

Old 07-28-2011, 05:01 AM
  #21  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

This issue of Ron Paul intrigues me. While I have a definite bias against him, and believe he is unelectable, I would like to keep an open mind about Mr.Paul...to this end I would explore his positions on various issues and would ask the "PRO-Ron Paul" contingent if they could provide something in the way of a link or two, as this bears further investigation. My opinion of him is somewhat ethereal and I hate the feeling of 'unsubstantiated bias'.
bergall is offline  
Old 07-28-2011, 05:27 AM
  #22  
Boone & Crockett
 
ipscshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,238
Default

Here are a couple that skim the surface...

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul
ipscshooter is offline  
Old 07-28-2011, 07:07 AM
  #23  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

hmm....here's my indictment.....

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)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Wall Street is dumping its trouble onto Main Street. (Sep 2008)
Mortgage & Financial Institutions Trust: more of the same. (Sep 2008)
Lower interest rates CAUSED housing bubble & can’t solve it. (Jan 2008)
Weak economy is source of resentment against immigrants. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008)
Changed opinion to anti-death penalty due to many mistakes. (Sep 2007)
Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography. (Sep 2007)
Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
We don't need laws to tell us to not use heroin. (May 2011)
Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)
Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated +30 by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance. (Dec 2006)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)
Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007)

it goes on and on....but I find I agree with more than I disagree with, but then again, the disagreements tend to define my outlook on him....

I think it's moot because I definitely believe he is unelectable for the simple fact that the perception of Ron Paul by the public is, right or wrong, insurmountable.

Thank you IP....I will continue to look thru the 2 links....lots of info there....
bergall is offline  
Old 07-28-2011, 07:15 AM
  #24  
Boone & Crockett
 
ipscshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,238
Default

Yeah, you've got most of the same problems with him that I do, although on some issues, you may find that you agree with him in principle, but, he believes that the Constitution does not grant regulatory authority to the Federal Government on the issue. i.e. He supports the "Defense of Marriage Act" which I believe defines "marriage" as between a man and a woman. But, beyond that, he believes the issue is to be governed by the States pursuant to the 10th Amendment. I think he's not terribly keen on tinkering with the Constitution...

By the way... Anytime you're looking for a quick summary of a politician's views, just google his "name" and "on the issues." The ontheissues website does a pretty good job of summarization...

Last edited by ipscshooter; 07-28-2011 at 07:18 AM.
ipscshooter is offline  
Old 07-28-2011, 08:01 AM
  #25  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by ipscshooter View Post
Yeah, you've got most of the same problems with him that I do, although on some issues, you may find that you agree with him in principle, but, he believes that the Constitution does not grant regulatory authority to the Federal Government on the issue. i.e. He supports the "Defense of Marriage Act" which I believe defines "marriage" as between a man and a woman. But, beyond that, he believes the issue is to be governed by the States pursuant to the 10th Amendment. I think he's not terribly keen on tinkering with the Constitution...

By the way... Anytime you're looking for a quick summary of a politician's views, just google his "name" and "on the issues." The ontheissues website does a pretty good job of summarization...
Thanks ! and that's what I think I have a problem...he's flipflopped on a few issues...and is inconsistent in some others....but even if I thought he was THE GUY FOR THE JOB, I would not vote for him because he's not where the majority vote would go. We need a viable candidate, but more importantly, we need a candidate who will BEAT Obama in 2012, plain and simple. This is not a time for 'voting one's conscience, except maybe in the primaries, but when it's REPUB vs DEMO, I dont think Paul will carry the day.
bergall is offline  
Old 07-28-2011, 08:14 AM
  #26  
Boone & Crockett
 
falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comance county, OK
Posts: 11,340
Default

On a lighter note: What are the chances of the "safe school zones act" being repealed any time soon?
falcon is offline  
Old 07-28-2011, 08:28 AM
  #27  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Thumbs down

This kind of legislation really illustrates what shallow thinkers some of our representatives are. Can you actually imagine someone considering going into a school to commit mass murder and deciding to refrain because it's illegal to carry a gun in a school zone?
sachiko is offline  
Old 07-28-2011, 08:34 AM
  #28  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by falcon View Post
On a lighter note: What are the chances of the "safe school zones act" being repealed any time soon?

PIgs will fly and libs will cut entitlements long before that ever comes to pass....
bergall is offline  
Old 07-28-2011, 08:37 AM
  #29  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
This kind of legislation really illustrates what shallow thinkers some of our representatives are. Can you actually imagine someone considering going into a school to commit mass murder and deciding to refrain because it's illegal to carry a gun in a school zone?
....and this is the basic fallacy of literally ALL gun control measures. As long as we know the 'bad guys' will actively circumvent gun laws, it makes no sense regulating the rest of the people who are peaceful and law-abiding on all counts. TO me, it smacks NOT of a desire for reducing firearms related deaths, but more like a craven and starved thrust for power over a disarmed populace, criminality be damned.
bergall is offline  
Old 07-28-2011, 08:40 AM
  #30  
Boone & Crockett
 
ipscshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,238
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
This kind of legislation really illustrates what shallow thinkers some of our representatives are. Can you actually imagine someone considering going into a school to commit mass murder and deciding to refrain because it's illegal to carry a gun in a school zone?
So, on this issue, at least, Dr. Paul appears to be the "deep" thinker.
ipscshooter is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.