Posted on 08/19/2007 2:50:27 PM PDT by t_skoz
Ron Paul won big earlier today in Alabama. He also won big in New Hampshire this afternoon.
Dr. Paul received 208 votes (73%) for a landslide victory against Mitt Romney today at the Strafford County, New Hampshire straw poll. Romney received 26 votes. Mike Huckabee came in third with 20 votes.
Tancredo (8 votes), McCain (7 votes), Cox (5 votes), Hunter (5 votes), Thompson (5 votes), Giuliani (3 votes) and Brownback (1 vote) finished the field.
As noted earlier, Ron Paul received 216 votes for a commanding first-place finish in a straw poll today sponsored by the West Alabama Republican Assembly. Mitt Romney came in second with 14 votes.
The poll was open to Alabama residents.
Have a good one...;-)
Ok, OK, your wish is granted...((;O)
The Hilabeast will take us to a point of federal leviathon that we have never seen....
PaleoPaulie, in his "constitutional" uberfussiness voted against legislation to stop such lawsuits nationwide. He is no friend of gunmakers and, by extrapolation, of gun owners. Press conferences are not policy. He jabbers endlessly but does not accomplish a thing.
1) ARE TOO!!!!
2) Because conservatives care about the good name of our movement and choose not to be slandered or libeled with the suggestion that the paleopeacecreep and libertoonian moron Ron Paul and his surrender monkey foreign policy have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with actual conservatism. Cowardice is NOT conservative.
3) Whacking the paleopeacecreep up side his useless head is a great hobby. We have been doing that to Jane Fonda and George McGovern for years and having fun, why should we deny ourselves the enjoyment of treating paleoPaulie likewise since his foreign policy of groveling before our nation's enemies is theirs as well.
Texas Matty: Welcome to FreeRepublic. You have made an auspicious start.
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 9, 2003
Restoring the Second Amendment
Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.”
Thomas Jefferson said “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans form exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders’ vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.
Ron Paul
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
The Bush administration recently surprised and angered many pro-gun conservatives by announcing its support for an assault weapons ban passed in 1994. The law contained a ten-year sunset provision, and is set to expire in 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President “supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.”
Perhaps this should have surprised no one. President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue. In fact, many attribute Gore’s loss to his lack of support among gun owners. The events of September 11th also dealt a serious blow to the gun control movement, as millions of Americans realized they could not rely on government to protect them against terrorism. Gun sales have predictably increased.
Given this trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration’s position may well cost votes in 2004. The mistaken political premise is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, so-called “assault weapons” are different and must be controlled. The administration clearly believes that moderate voters from both parties support the ban. “Who could possibly need such weapons?” is the standard question posed by gun control advocates.
Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified “assault rifles” outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.
More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose 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 the 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 ten, thirty, or fifty years 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. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:
“Suppose the Second amendment said ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?”
EEE: PaleoPaulie supports and opposes a lot of things but he is allergic to getting anything done beyond bloviating and contradicting himself while posing for holy pictures.
October 20, 1997
Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
Proves that while faces, parties change, Congress stays the same By US Representative Ron Paul
A cursory reading of the Constitution makes it clear that there was never meant to be a federal police force. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, explicitly defines the role of federal government and correctly reserves the authority, power and responsibility for police activities to local government. Why? Because it is at that level where potential abuses can be minimized by a watchful citizenry.
Even an “FBI” style of federal agency, limited only to being a resource for investigations, was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the federal government’s misdirected and misapplied war on drugs, the hysteria surrounding radical environmentalism, and the aggressive dictates of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the states. This buildup is the direct result of the sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local control by many Americans.
The enforcement of the interventionist, welfare-warfare state requires a growing army of thriving bureaucrats. With special interests demanding favors, federal office-holders can only meet those demands by abusing the rights of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty. The resentment of those being abused is then directed at the government agents who come to collect, even though those agents are merely the front-men for the special interests and their elected puppets. As resentment toward these agents increases and becomes more hostile, the natural consequence has been for the bureaucrats - the intruders upon liberty - to arm themselves as protection against the angry victims of government abuse.
Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, the surge in the number of armed federal bureaucrats has been brought to our attention. Farah points out that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new federal agents were authorized to carry firearms. This brings the total up to nearly 60,000. Farah points out that these increases were not only in agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife department, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
According to Farah, even the Bureau of Land Management wants to be armed. Farah logically asks, “When will the (National Endowment for the Arts) have its armed art cops?” This is a dangerous, and ironic, trend. Ironic in that the proliferation of guns for bureaucrats is being so firmly - though admittedly stealthily - pushed by the same antigun politicians who publicly work to disarm every law-abiding American citizen in the name of safety. Which begs the question, “Safety for whom?”
On one level I agree whole-heartily with the anti-gun activists. We desperately need gun control: we need to control the bureaucrats, disarm them, and then abolish their agencies. There is no constitutional basis for the EPA, and certainly no constitutional reason for allowing EPA agents to pack pistols as they declare every inch of your property a protected “wetland.”
Force and intimidation are the preferred tools of tyrants, though not just intimidation with government guns. The threat of imprisonment and fear of harassment by government agents strikes terror into the hearts of millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a settlement in her celebrated suit against the president, she received notice that she and her husband would be audited for their 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is the current “year” for which the IRS is conducting audits of returns, the government claim that the action is unrelated to the suit is suspect, to say the least.
Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward the federal government, know the evidence exists that since the 1970’s both Republican and Democratic administrations have not hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits and regulatory harassment. Though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by many guns. All government power is ultimately gun power, and serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend the principles of liberty.
I tend to agree with Charlton Heston, who recently said that the Constitution’s Second Amendment is the most important. Without the ability to protect themselves and their property, discussion of any other rights is only so much talk.
A gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen serves as a very real, very important deterrent to an arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact, it’s a shame our generation has ignored it
The DC Gun Ban
March 12, 2007
Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation’s capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia ‘s nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a “collective right,” something gun control advocates have asserted for years.
Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. “Group rights” is an oxymoron.
Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King’s soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.
In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated militia,” it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so.
The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.
Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe— as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book “More Guns, Less Crime,” scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control—like Washington DC—experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation’s capital, where the individual’s right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.
Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People’s lives and safety are at stake.
Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
July 31, 2000
The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police
The House of Representatives recently approved a massive appropriations bill that will fund various Treasury Department agencies at record spending levels. The bill appropriates nearly 30 billion dollars, an increase over last year’s already huge Treasury budget. More disturbing, however, is the whopping 23% increase in funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) contained in the Treasury bill.
ATF gets more than $730 million dollars for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $166 million over its 2000 budget. Why the increase? The administration wants the agency to hire 600 new federal police officers to enforce ever-expanding gun laws. Never mind the obvious failures of gun control legislation and the clear Second Amendment prohibition against such laws. The politicians in Washington are determined to slowly abolish gun rights, and they are determined to use federal police to accomplish the task.
The American public gradually has become aware of the disturbing trend toward federal policing of our nation. Many Americans do not support ATF, especially after the disastrous events at Waco. I was widely attacked in the media and by members of Congress for questioning the government’s actions at Waco, and for merely suggesting that many Americans were concerned by the possibility of federal agents taking violent action against American citizens. Now we have Congress spending more money to increase the budget for ATF, despite its highly questionable actions and the resulting public mistrust of the agency.
It is important to recognize that our federal constitution lists only three federal crimes, namely counterfeiting, treason, and piracy on the high seas. The founding fathers never envisioned a federal police force, knowing that such a force would trample on the right of each state to enact and enforce its own criminal laws. Hence there is no provision for the creation of a general federal police force in the enumeration of congressional powers. Furthermore, the 10th amendment explicitly reserves the general police power to the states individually. Washington politicians, however, have no interest in constitutional limitations when they seek to expand and consolidate their power by federalizing whole areas of criminal activity. They have consistently expanded federal criminal laws, particularly in the areas of drugs and firearms. The result of this expansion is the inevitable call for more federal police to enforce the new laws. We are told we need more ATF agents to monitor firearms, and more DEA agents to wage the “war on drugs.” Congress is not concerned with its lack of constitutional authority to create, much less expand a national police force.
Washington politicians have successfully used recent excessive-force allegations against local police to further their goals. It is convenient to portray local police as violent or racist, and therefore in need of federal oversight and restraint. The question, however, is whether we should trust a federal police force more than we trust our own local authorities. I believe there is a growing recognition that our founding fathers were correct when they prohibited federal government involvement in law enforcement. In Waco, Americans had a vivid example of the impact of the growing police state. With the veneer being stripped from the myth of federal law enforcement, our citizens are beginning to realize that it is both unconstitutional and untenable.
God IS always right because He IS God. If you don’t believe that, make your case.
December 20, 1999
Cosponsored Bills
106th Congress, 1st Session
This past year I cosponsored 200 bills in Congress. This means that I have given my name support to legislative initiatives introduced by another member of Congress. As might be expected, nearly half of those bills deal in one way or another with reducing the tax burden faced by Americans. I cosponsored Congressman Kasich’s bill to cut taxes across the board for all Americans, as well as dozens of bills calling for tax relief for educational purposes. Other bills target tax relief to American seniors and for all Americans who are seeking to improve their health care choices.
Some of the bills I have cosponsored deal with topics on which I have already introduced legislation. These include measures dealing with second amendment rights protection, restriction of funding to the United Nations and “Sense of Congress resolutions” regarding executive orders and privacy issues. Often times, I cosponsor a bill that is not necessarily drafted in such a fashion that I believe will really get at the heart of the problem it is intended to address. Nonetheless, I decide to cosponsor such measures, as long as they take steps in the right direction. Additionally, if the issue is something that I see as significant to maintaining our liberty and restoring our Republic, I will also craft a bill that I think more directly addresses the central problem. In this way, I can lend support to other Members who are moving in the right direction while also advocating a more specific, and often times more significant, remedy to the problem.
Four bills that I cosponsored this year have actually passed through the House. Two of them were “Sense of Congress” resolutions. One of these expressed the opinion that no federal funds should go to the sacrilegious displays at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and the other one stated that prayers and invocations at public school sporting events ought to be considered constitutional. This latter issue has been very important in Texas where a federal court ruled that prayer before a school football game was unconstitutional. The founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew that the constitution they gave us was interpreted by liberal judges as prohibiting a prayer at a local high school. This travesty must not stand, and the real solution, of course, is for the federal courts to keep their noses out of the business of local school districts.
I also cosponsored a bill offered by Roy Blunt from Missouri that delayed even more new federal regulations from going into affect. This bill dealt with ergonomics guidelines, and it passed the House in July.
Also, I cosponsored Don Young’s American Land Sovereignty Preservation Act, which passed the House earlier this year. This bill would give Congress say in the designation of natural and historic sites. The President has taken onto himself the designation of such sites.
One bill I cosponsored that did gain support from many in the House, but did not pass the body, was the Tax Limitation Amendment, which would have required a super-majority for any future tax increase. Unfortunately, the amendment was not able to get the 2/3 vote necessary to move it forward.
Next year I will continue to look for worthy bills to cosponsor even as I work, through signing and coordinating Dear Colleague letters and by otherwise working with key Members of Congress, to help move the bills I cosponsored this year through the process and hopefully on to passage.
So, abolish BATF.
George McGovern and paleoPaulie are both veterans and it does not insulate either one from being a fool as to foreign policy. Did you hear that John Kerry served in Vietnam????
Anyone have a clue as to what an SFB is?????
He is no friend of gunmakers and, by extrapolation, of gun owners.
I'll put Dr. Pauls record of support for the 2nd amendment up against your candidate any time.
Tancredo is a good man. I’d like to see him as Ron Paul’s running mate!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.