Gun supporters split over Rep. Paul

World Net Daily ^ | 4/26/2003 | Jon Dougherty

[inquest]

I looked over the article and I don't see where the GOA was upset that the NRA wasn't supporting Paul.

[Shooter 2.5]

keepandbeararms.com's main sponsor is the GOA.

And you are absolutely correct. I should have written GOA members. My apologies.

[SpyGuy]

Can't you people see the big picture?

Don't get me wrong. I support H.R. 1036, even though it means violating the basic principles of the Constitution. Unfortunately, our governments and society are so out-of-control, that we have to break some rules to get things back on track. I'm not happy about this, because it leads us down the slippery slope that got us into this mess to begin with.

That said, I still support Ron Paul and his position on this matter. The true mark of a responsible leader is one who does what is right, even if it is unpopular.

It is childish for the NRA to threaten to pull their support from Rep. Paul. Worse than that, it gives power and propaganda to his political opponents--and the NRA's. Instead, they should laud Rep. Paul and hold him up as the ideal to which all Congressmen should aspire (especially, the so-called "conservative" ones).

[inquest]

I should have written GOA members.

Even then, do we know that anyone who posts to KABA is a GOA member?

[inquest]

I agree. A much better strategy for dealing with these malicious lawsuits is to defund and deexempt the various leftist groups that are pushing them.

[Shooter 2.5]

Not all of them. Just the ones who say they are.

[Shooter 2.5]

Removing support from Ron Paul may be a very smart move. The NRA is in the business of protecting the Rights of gun owners. In Ron Paul's area, that could be any Republican.

Besides, why give money to a candidate when he's already receiving money from another gun group?

[supercat]

I support H.R. 1036, even though it means violating the basic principles of the Constitution.

I would respectfully suggest to both you and Mr. Paul that Congress has exclusive authority over interstate commerce. Given that the stated intention of these lawsuits is to interfere with the lawful interstate commerce of firearms, I don't think it's a stretch to state that barring such lawsuits is a "necessary and proper" means of Congress exerting its authority.

Alternatively, with some slight changes to the bill, it could be made to pass muster under the "Full faith and credit" clause which lets Congress determine the effects of judicial actions in one state on another: using that power, Congress could declare all judicial actions against firearm manufacturers in other states to be null and void.

[TheDon]

Hmmm...I wonder what trumps, the state's right to disarm its citizens, or the citizen's right to be armed? I think Ron needs to rethink his position.

[jjm2111]

Can you imagine what the slimy pols think about Rep. Paul? He says no to pretty much everything on constitutional grounds. Like they all should.

[jjm2111]

The NRA should realize that Paul is doing it from a principled position. He's not philosphically opposed to gun ownership, he just thinks the 10th amendment is not just window dressing.

[jjm2111]

"cross-dressing transgendered homosexual babysitter"

So that means a guy became a girl, still dresses like a guy and does it with girls. Interesting.

[jjm2111]

The very reason the GOA exists (as well as so many other RKBA organizations) is because the NRA have voluntarily yielded so many of our Second Amendment rights to the gun grabbers.

I'm a life member of GOA, but only an annual for the NRA for this very reason.

[Shooter 2.5]

Supercat and his #29 post explains it better than I can. The Federal government should be able to protect interstate commerce. The word "protect" here is the key. The lawsuits were never there to get money from the plantiffs. It was designed to drive the manufacturers out of business.

I can assure you the NRA will not give a dime to the opposition party.

[inquest]

I would respectfully suggest to both you and Mr. Paul that Congress has exclusive authority over interstate commerce.

Authority over interstate commerce doesn't involve power to regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce. That's an invention of FDR's packed court, and the source of much federal mischief-making.