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)
He’s apparently pro-frivalous lawsuits that would shut the industry down, and hold them responsible for mis use of their products by criminals. He supports suing the maker if a crook murders someone. That’s the voting record of a democrat with business ties to trial lawyers.
Or maybe he supports that US Constitution he takes an oath to defend and believes (correctly) that none of the above issues are issue for the federal government...your post is typical of so many though...makes me wonder how many Americans have ever even read the Constitution
Nin_kasi,
Your post shows a complete ignorance of the guiding philosophy of Ron Paul. Paul votes against every single bill where Congress oversteps the authority it is given in the Constitution. Fred Thompson recently blogged that he is proud of some of his 99-1 votes because he was voting on the principle of limited government. Congress (and the courts) should restrain themselves and govern within the limits of the Constitution.
I find it most amusing that so-called conservatives want strict constructionists on the supreme court but call the one strict constructionist in Congress a nut.
Incidentally, Ron Paul is the most pro-second amendment person in the US government. Were you to look up his history instead of making ignorant attacks, you’d know this. Here is H.R. 1096, a bill recently introduced by Ron Paul:
H.R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans
HR 1096 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1096
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007’.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1993 LAW PROVIDING FOR A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF A HANDGUN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM TO BE CONTACTED BY FIREARMS DEALERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM.
Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION.
(a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—
(1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes’; and
(2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes’.
(b) Section 921(a)(4)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes’.
(c) Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes’.
(d) Section 921(a)(17)(C) of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,’.
(e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community’.
(f) Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes’.
(g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and’.
(h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B)’.
(i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes’.
(j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes’.
(k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and (b)(3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes’ and inserting `lawful purposes’.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005.
(a) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code-
(1) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (z).
(2) Section 924 of such title is amended—
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `(f), or (p)’ and inserting `or (f)’; and
(B) by striking subsection (p).
(b) Repealer- Section 5 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note; 119 Stat. 2099) is repealed.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.
Ron Paul is the MOST pro-gun person in Congress. Always has been...
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)
****************
Fortunately, he's unelectable.
Try to get enough neurons functioning to spell "frivolous" before you dump such a lying load of crap on us in the future, ok?
Most of Paul’s votes are what they are because the legislation is not Constitutional in the first damn place.
IOW, on the “3-day” bill, it was Paul’s opinion that any regulation is a STATE, not Federal affair.
I don’t know about the other two votes...