Congressman Ron Paul - Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots

Texas Straight Talk ^ | December 8, 2008 | Congressman Ron Paul

[SecAmndmt]

Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots

Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.

Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?

India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.

Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.

The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.

History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.

In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.

[djsherin]

***Never mind that the incredibly successful (/s) gun control compromise strategy supported by the NRA and Republicans has done nothing but move the Republic further down the road to disarmament.***

I’ve never understood why liberals are always so miserable. Society continues to move in their direction no matter who gets in office. Sometimes it’s more slowly than others, but it’s always moving towards more government control.

[SecAmndmt]

“I’ve never understood why liberals are always so miserable.”

Liberals won’t be happy until there are no real Christians or non-progressives living on the planet.

[djsherin]

I guess then we will have reached true tolerance huh? I wonder what they’ll hate then if they get their way.

[SecAmndmt]

“I wonder what they’ll hate then if they get their way.”

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[wastedyears]

I would think statistics are on our side. Compare accidental medical death to death by firearm.

[Gondring]

I hope you set him straight.

[piytar]

Just like Musims, they’ll hate (and often kill) each other. Heck, we afe already seeing the leftist eat their own and turn on Obamanation...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Did Congress ever declare war as it should have?"

Have you ever seen the Iraq War Resolution? Congress passed it in October 2002. Here is one of the relevant parts:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Sounds like a delcaration of war to me (as outlined in article 1 section 8 of the constitution). The same section also gives Congress the authority to coin money. It does not say how it is to be exactly done, just that Congress is responsible for it. Likewise, it doesn't say that someone from Congress has to get up in the well of the Senate and say "I officially declare war on Iraq". The Congress used the Iraq war resolution to declare war on Iraq. Look at the title of the law for crying out loud.

What you may or may not know is that in 1991 we did not sign a peace treaty with Sadaam, but rather a cease fire negotiated along the lines of UN Resolution 660. Sadaam over the years not only violated that resolution, but something like 17 others. Really, we did not even need the Iraq War resolution, but rather just a continuance of the first gulf war as the cease fire had been continually violated thus allowing us to continue the first war.

It always amazes me that Ron Paul supporters love to throw out this idea that the Iraq war was unconstitutional, yet provide no evidence for it. I have provided mucho evidence above as to why it was constitutional.

When Ron Paul is right (as he is on second amendment issues) we will support him. However, when he is out in left field as he is on a lot of national security issues, we will rip him the same as the libs.

[Eagle Eye]

Sounds like a delcaration of war to me

And it almost is.

No where will the history books list a date that the US declared war as they did for WWI and WWII.

Politically this was a huge mistake as the Resolution of Force gets rather ambiguous at times and the Dems back tracked at their first opportunity.

A Declaration of War is unambiguous and although some may express regrets, they can never say that violence and loss of life was not what they voted for.

If Congress had wanted to declare war they could have; they didn't so they didn't. They wanted a way out if things didn't go as they wanted.

And yes, we had these discussions here on FR back in 2002.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Did you actually read what I posted above? There is nothing ambigious about the paragraph that I posted from the law. The official title of the law was “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”. Where is the ambiguity there? Everyone called it the Iraq War resolution. How is that ambigious?

Everyone knew what passing that law meant. Apparently except Ron Paul supporters which speaks to your IQ, not everyone elses. Even the liberals understood what it meant! It gave the President the authority to make war on Iraq. You Ron Paul supporters wanted someone to get up and say “I declare war on Iraq”, like we’re kids saying “One, two, three, four I declare a thumb war”. Please show me the passage in the constitution where it lays out exactly how war is to be declared? It says that Congress has the power to declare war. It does not say exactly how it is to be done, but I’ll continue to wait on you showing me the exact steps the constitution outlines how to declare war.

[Eagle Eye]

When I saw your statement that you’d rip RP when you thought he was not in agreement with your views just as you would a liberal, I then knew your positions were more emotionally charged than rational.

And now you begin insulting my intelligence because I don’t see it the same way you do.

Does that make you feel better now? Do you now feel that you’ve whittled me down to size enough to discuss/debate something with me?

If so....

Can you show me in the Constitution the section that allows for Us of Force resolutions?

Interestingly there is language about Declaring War but NOT about invading another country based on a resulution of force.

Congress sidestepped the issue by authorizing the use of force THEN working against the president whenever possible. Was it legal under UN resolutions? Yes. Was it a declaration of war. Not imo and I still say that Congress was careful about intentionally not declaring war. And politically speaking,

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I'm insulting your intelligence because you (and the rest of the Ron Paulnuts) refuse to accept the basic facts of history. Basic facts that even the left have accepted. So that must speak to either your IQ or the fact that it does not fit your neat little view of the world. Take your pick. If it was so unconstitutional, why didn't some Ron Paulnuts take it to court and lay out your case before the American public? It was not ambigous. Everyone in the Congress and public knew what the Iraq War resolution was for. Hence, the name, Iraq War resolution.

You still have not addressed the fact that we never signed a peace treaty in the first war (merely a cease fire). A peace treaty ends the conflict. A cease fire suspends the conflict while the negotiated terms are in place. Once those terms are broken, the conflict can be resumed. Sadaam violated the resolutions under which the cease fire was negotiated, hence America had every right to resume the original conflict.

[Eagle Eye]

It says that Congress has the power to declare war. It does not say exactly how it is to be done, but I’ll continue to wait on you showing me the exact steps the constitution outlines how to declare war.

So Korea and Viet Nam really were declared wars?

Hey, if Congress doesn't have to declare war to declare war then there really isn't any distinction is there?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"So Korea and Viet Nam really were declared wars?"

So now you want to deflect the fact that you are wrong by pointing out something we never talked about? What I said was that the manner in which the Congress chooses to declare war is not spelled out in the constitution. Again, what form does a formal declaration of war take? Where in the constitution does it say are the steps in this formal declaration of war? Please point out. I'm waiting.

[Eagle Eye]

We both know that there is no magic formula or encantation for declaring war.

However, you haven’t shown me where the Constitution authorizes a Use Of Force in leu of a Declaration of War.

But based on your logic, if Congress doesn’t need to “declare” war in order to declare war, then I am correct that Korea and Viet Nam were actually declared wars.

Congress authorized and funded both so they must have really meant a declaration of war in both. Now go and tell all those vets of the ‘undeclared wars’ that they really were in declared wars.

Sorry, but that is YOUR logic in action.

[Eagle Eye]

And with your arrogance I don’t expect you to admit a single point, either. ;)

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"However, you haven’t shown me where the Constitution authorizes a Use Of Force in leu of a Declaration of War."

Show me in the constitution where the congress has to have a Declaration of War. It says Congress has the power to declare war. When the congress makes a law that gives the President the authority to use military force to oust Sadaam Hussein, that's declaring war to the rest of the country (minus the Ron Paulnuts). Hence, the Iraq War Resolution.

And you still have not even attempted to discuss the fact that we were already in a declared war in which a cease fire was in effect under certain conditions. Said conditions were broken by Sadaam Hussein. Guess you don't want to talk about that one do you?

[Eagle Eye]

You can try to revise and rewrite history all you want but there have only been five instances of the president requesting and the congress formally declaring war.

Only five.

I’m saying that if Bush and Congress wanted to formally declare war they could have, the model exists.

But they didn’t so they didn’t\

Oh yeah, those five instances I previously mentioned did not include any intervention in Kuwait.

[dbz77]

A parent refused to allow her child to visit one of her friends, because the friend's parents kept a gun in the house.

Heaven forbid her child visit a police station.

[Eagle Eye]

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32170.pdf

CRS Report for Congress

Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2007

The instances differ greatly in number of forces, purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal authorization.

Eleven times in its history the U.S. has formally declared war against foreign nations.

These eleven U.S. war declarations encompassed five separate wars: the war with Great Britain declared in 1812, the war with Mexico declared in 1846, the War with Spain declared in 1898, the First World War, during which the U.S. declared war with Germany and with Austria-Hungary during 1917, World War II, during which the U.S. declared war against Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941, and against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania in 1942.

Some of the instances were extended military engagements that might be considered undeclared wars. These include the Undeclared Naval War with France from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; the Persian Gulf War of 1991, global actions against foreign terrorists after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, and the War with Iraq in 2003.

With the exception of the Korean War, all of these conflicts received Congressional authorization in some form short of a formal declaration of war.

Other, more recent instances often involve deployment of U.S. military forces as part of a multinational operation associated with NATO or the United Nations.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32170.pdf