Posted on 01/10/2012 8:12:26 PM PST by Cheeks
2012 Presidential Candidates Friday, 11 November 2011 14:30 Ron Paul A+ Rick Perry A Rick Santorum B- Newt Gingrich C Mitt Romney D- Jon Huntsman Not Rated
Hope for change.
RP DID get an A+. What’s not to like about THAT???
Ron Paul. A plus!
Rep. Ron Paul: A Second Amendment Champion
Tuesday, 22 November 2011 08:12
Guts. That is the one word which describes Rep. Ron Paul of Texas best. Perhaps the most consistent vote in the Congress, he can be expected to oppose any unconstitutional expansion of government, no matter how politically difficult that vote might be.
He was one of only three Congressmen to vote against the USA Patriot Act — a law which not only removes many of the delicate checks and balances protecting our freedoms, but opens the door for the ATF to conduct blanket searches in obtaining 4473s and other gun records.
Paul has been a powerful advocate for the Second Amendment and has sponsored legislation to repeal most gun laws dating back to 1968 — as well as, legislation to get the U.S. out of the anti-gun United Nations.
In 2011, Rep. Paul introduced HR 2613, a bill to repeal the infamous Gun Free School Zones law. Slammed through in 1996 as an amendment to a giant last-minute must-pass appropriations bill, the school zones law disarmed school staff and other adults, leaving elementary and secondary school children defenseless to serial killers.
It also made it virtually impossible to drive your car down the street with your gun inside without violating the law by creating a 1000-foot so-called gun-free zone around every public and private school in the country.
Its gun free, that is, except for the criminals.
Pauls bill, HR 2613, will repeal the Kohl amendment and thus remove the federally created criminal safety zones.
Ron Paul has an A+ rating with Gun Owners of America.
I love the fact that Ron Paul got an A+. I’ll vote for him in my primary. Sadly, I think the rest of the country will not vote for him. It boggles my mind, but it appears most posters on Free Republic will not be voting for Ron Paul. It is really shocking when I see Anti-Paul posts on the Banglist section, especially. He seems to be the only one that actually gives the Constitution some consideration on a consistent basis.
Great so regardless of who wins in November we’re guaranteed a gun hater who wants to take them away.
OK GOA, how can Paul get an A+ when he refused to support a law that would hold gun manufacturers harmless from lawsuits when their guns are used in the commission of a crime?
He was one of 3 republicans who refused to support that law.
If gun manufacturers could be sued just for making a gun, then the 2nd amendment would be worthless.
Just by that vote alone Paul should have gotten an F-.
The GOA has lost it's mind.
This could really start to suck.
Well, if it’s going to come down to a choice between Romney, Paul, or Obama, then it’s time to explode the maximum number of heads in Washington, anyway.
I’d have to choose Ron Paul.
I am voting for RP in the primary and A B O in the GE.
Yep, how can Paul allow gun companies to be sued for gun owner decisions and even remotely be called pro-gun.
That is the most anti-gun law ever to be dreamed up.
It’s like making Ford Motors responsible for every DUI accident in America involving one of their cars.
I found this regarding the “Lawful Commerce in Arms act”. It’s his comments. Again, he is being consistent in his consideration of the Constitution when voting for or against a bill.
Gun Rights vs. Centralization
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 9, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional
liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it.
It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders understood the need to separate power between federal, state, and local governments to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to citizens. The reservation of most powers to the states strictly limited the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as alleged gun-related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.
While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval of the very nature of these suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages from gun violence should be filed against the perpetrators of those crimes, not gun manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully, and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by a criminal who stole the weapon). Clearly these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice, but by a search for deep pockets and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.
However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that guns, which are inanimate objects, are somehow responsible for crimes. HR 1036 shifts the focus away from criminals and their responsibility for their actions. It adds to the cult of irresponsibility that government unfortunately so often promotes. This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one’s own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to commit a crime, such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, or baseball bats. Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not the implications are preposterous.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or lovers of liberty.
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
From http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/The_Second_Amendment/
I see the delusional Paultards have infested this thread. Wake up and smell the coffee:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2829309/posts
Ron Paul A PLUS beats Mittens D-
Ron Paul is so full of shit that his eyes are brown.
Congress has the enumerated power to pass laws to enforce the 14th Amendment which applies all the rights in the bill of rights to the states. This law was designed to prevent the states from instituting policies and laws which would have rendered the 2nd amendment meaningless.
Ron Paul pretends to be a constitutionalist, but frankly, I don't think he has ever read it. He is insane. And he is an idiot.
Take it up with GOA, they made the rankings.
First, feel free to disagree, but please refrain from name-calling.
Second, I agree, the comments re:Bradley Manning being a hero are disturbing. Especially since Bradley Manning would have signed an oath swearing to protect the information. Manning potentially jeopardized American lives with his actions. I think I had actually read the article you linked to before, but I’d forgotten that part about Bradley Manning.
Third, I still think Paul is the most Pro-Gun, Pro-Liberty candidate.
First, feel free to disagree, but please refrain from name-calling.
Second, I agree, the comments re:Bradley Manning being a hero are disturbing. Especially since Bradley Manning would have signed an oath swearing to protect the information. Manning potentially jeopardized American lives with his actions. I think I had actually read the article you linked to before, but I’d forgotten that part about Bradley Manning.
Third, I still think Paul is the most Pro-Gun, Pro-Liberty candidate.
First, feel free to disagree, but please refrain from name-calling.
Second, I agree, the comments re:Bradley Manning being a hero are disturbing. Especially since Bradley Manning would have signed an oath swearing to protect the information. Manning potentially jeopardized American lives with his actions. I think I had actually read the article you linked to before, but I’d forgotten that part about Bradley Manning.
Third, I still think Paul is the most Pro-Gun, Pro-Liberty candidate.
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.