Ron Paul on Gun Control
December 9, 2008
Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
by Ron Paul
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?_Ts 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 ?_ofinal 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.
http://www.ronpaul.com/
Seriously, whatever else some of you may think of Ron Paul, has there ever been a US Congressman that has been so candid as Dr. Paul on Gun ownership? No hedging about, or mumbling about the right to hunt. Especially in this time of acute liberal PC. Could you ever imagine any other elected officalin DC saying something similar?
Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
by Ron Paul
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?_Ts 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 ?_ofinal 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.
http://www.ronpaul.com/
Seriously, whatever else some of you may think of Ron Paul, has there ever been a US Congressman that has been so candid as Dr. Paul on Gun ownership? No hedging about, or mumbling about the right to hunt. Especially in this time of acute liberal PC. Could you ever imagine any other elected officalin DC saying something similar?
0
-
Nope WZ, he's one of a kind. 0 -
quote: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.
Not only do the masses fall for this propaganda for gun control but for higher taxes and loss of freedom as well. [xx(] [:(!]0 -
The pubic (with help from the media, etc.)
passed on putting this man in the office of POTUS. [V][V][V]0 -
Right on !
Is time to repeat actions of the Sons of Liberty.....such actions like what they did to the Stamp Taxer ??????
Would that surely open some eyes in Washington?????0 -
quote:Originally posted by nyforester
Would that surely open some eyes in Washington?????
No, would be opposite effect.0 -
from the little i know about him he seems like a decent person.. it`s a real pity he didn`t get a decent crack at the top job. at the very least he might have woken a lot of people up to what could happen there...as it has happened in other places.
he makes very clear statements, and ones that are very easily proved with a bit of basic research.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dan kelly
at the very least he might have woken a lot of people up to what could happen there...
Also no. Seems that more people got disappointed (not him, but the American people). Just look at what people were/are saying about Dr. Paul on this forum where you'd think he'd be praised for his ideology.0 -
rock...why?
it`s a serious question...i only know about him by what i have read on these forums.
i know he is pro gun, but i also know there is more to life than just that. you don`t need a politician to give you permission to own guns, you just have to keep them and tell no-one...what else does he believe in?
what is his answer to the economic fiasco?
what are his ideas for creating jobs for americans?...which = disposable wealth for americans,which helps the u.s. economy grow.etc,etc.
what does he think is the answer to protect the u.s. from being attacked again?..
like i said, these are serious questions...i`m not being a smart ass or anything...i truly only know what i have read here about him.0 -
it`s a serious question...i only know about him by what i have read on these forums.
Dan, check out his stands on various issues here, and here:
http://www.ronpaul.com/
http://www.ronpaul.org/
In a nutshell, Dr,. Paul is unique from the rest of the DC politicians because he advocates a return to Constitutional principles, where the rights of the individual trump over the government. He is anti-tax, anti-regulation, and anti-"USA Policeman of the the World". He is against our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. This latter stand makes him unpopular with some on this forum, because he appears to be soft on terrorism. He believes that less meddling in other countries affairs would prevent us getting stuck in a hornet's nest of other people's troubles. Actually, he does want a strong military to defend our borders.
But his strongest stand has been against the corruption of the free market and the devaluation of our currency. Too much to go into here, but almost every day the news channels interview him because they now realize all that he said before about the Federal Reserve, the inflation of our currency, and government regulation with the market would destroy our economy has come to pass. And he has being warning everyone since the 1980's! As far as I am concern, he is the only true statesman in DC.0 -
As far as I am concerned, he is the only true statesman in DC.
zombie,
You are 100% correct.[;)][:D]0 -
I liked what he says about several things. On control I support his position 200%. AS do most in here I'm sure. BUT... What I had a problem with was the utopian dreams and ideals of the Paulers. According to them, all we had to do was get Paul in office and then with a wave of his mighty hand all the uncoinstitutional laws would be gone. All the unconstitutional programs, would be gone. POOF !!
AS a result I had a hard time following someone who had followers that weren't grounded in reality. Tends to make me wonder if the candidate is grounded either. NOTHING they said he would do, could or would happen. The President still has to obey the rules set up in the founding documents. He can't just go in and start dismantleing things. Doesn't work that way. But boy howdy,, try telling a Pauler that and woe be unto you for stating a basic truth. I wish him luck the next time he tries. But if he doesn't get a handle on his followers and what they are saying, OR IF what they are saying was/is coming from him then maybe he needs to rethink his mental foundations as well. If not, the result will be the same as this time.0 -
I think you mistake the enthusiasm of some of his supporters with Ron Paul's message. I also think you are confusing what each Paul supporter would do with freedom from the government, as being part of Dr. Paul's message. Ron Paul is a realist--All he advocates is that we, as citizens, to have the freedom to run our own lives. Will things be messy if people are free to choose, without the government being used as a safety net? You bet. It all comes down to whether you need a bloated, over-regulated government to run your life in the name of protecting you, or have individual freedom with the risk of facing danger.
Now as far as dismantling things, what do you mean? The IRS, the ATF, the DEA, etc,??? None of those alphabet soup agencies are approved under the Constitution--They are all parasites, soaking the taxpayers and abusing citizens. The Federal Reserve is no way ok'd by the Constitution or the Founding Fathers! That very institution is an abomination to all the principles that the Constitution holds dear.
The US currently has 15 major departments and over 450 agencies. Each one of them is affecting your life and mine with regulations--We probably are violating a couple hundred of those rules right now.
All of them are burdening each of us with taxes to upkeep, and provide very little in return.
Ron Paul has stated very clearly he does not want to run anyone's life--Unlike Obama and his cadre of Socialists. He merely what to get rid of the overbearing shackles of government out of the lives of the citizens. He recognizes we still need a basic government to maintain some infrastructure and a military to defend our physical borders.0 -
WZ,,, I understand that these agencies are not mentioned/authorized in or by the constitution. But they are there and they are there to stay. And there is absolutly NOTHING anybody can do about it. Am I happy with some of those oganizations ? No. But the FBI isn't mentioned either. Should it go away? Some of these agencies were born to tkae care of a specific problem and they grew from there. I can think os several agencies that aren't mentioned in the constitution but but have become a nessessity in this society. Something that would cause a complete break down in the general order if dismanteled tomorrow. Or even next year. People talk big about what they don't like, but they are short on solutions. And Paul or anybody else can not simply get elected and start dismantleing these various agencies. It fantasy to even think so. And all those people that started swearing to me that Paul could do just that, turned me off him completely. 0 -
But they are there and they are there to stay. And there is absolutly NOTHING anybody can do about it.
See, that is the root of our problem We throw our hands up in the air, and say, "We cannot reduce the size of government." Why not? Why can't we remove the Fed, and the other agencies that are a waste of resources? We created them , we sure can remove them! Is there something in the Constitution that says we can't? They sure to do not "promote the general welfare".
If you think its fantasy for someone like Ron Paul to desire to reduce the waste and redundant agencies in our government, then you might as well resign yourself to the fact that our government is out of control,and NO ONE can reign it in. You might as well admit that you are a subject, not a citizen, and voting is useless.
So what is the solution? Keep voting in office future presidents that are more "mainstream", who can "win", like a McCain or an Obama? People will just keep doing the same as before, giving more power to the government? It's just as fantasy for you to think that the government can keep getting bigger and more powerful, and that it will not either collapse upon itself, or drive us to serfdom.
Do you really think our country is that fragile it would break if some government agencies were dismantled, like the FBI or the CIA? You are talking about the same agencies that failed, despite warning signs, that 9/11 would happen! Or how the CIA gets the US involved in other countries affairs that drag us into trouble. Wake up, my good man! The Government is the most inefficient security system ever. It is not Jack Bauer saving the world everyday, nor the upcoming propaganda TV series "Homeland Security" that supposedly protects us daily from potential terrorist acts. You place too much faith in our government's ability to serve and protect.0 -
WZ,, It depends on what agencies your talking about. Law Enforcement agencies were created to fill a need that locals could not handle. To say that the CIA is a failure because it ignored all the warnings of 9/11 is to say that it missed that ONE Needle in that 400 square mile hatstack that put it all together. I can't see that. OUr intelligence agencies go through 100's of 1000's peices of intel all the time. Most of which is pure garbage. Like most people, nobody wants the FBI around or any other cop for that matter until something happens then they can't get there fast enough to suit you. AS for the Federal Reserve, yeah I could see that going away. Not over night mind you but I can see that something needs to be done. The big problem I had with the Paulers was that they weren't specific. The ones I talked to wanted ALL agencies and programs that were not STRICKTLY laid out in the constitution done away with. Sorry. But that just can't happen. Welfare for instance. Needs to be revamped for sure. Shut down all together? Can't do it. Combine that with eliminating most of the major Federal Law Enforcement in the country and you would have chaos in the streets. For as abused as the welfare system is, it does actually feed people who CAN'T work due to some problem. Get rid of the leaches and you have a good program. Get rid of the program and you have rampent crime like you have never seen. Who's going to handle all that new crime ? Locals ?? *L* Not likely. Veterans Administration. Not specifically spelled out in the constitution but it's there and it's needed. There are a lot of things that are not spelled out in constitution because the need for them did not exsist when it was written. But as times progress' certain things come up that need solutions. SOME of these agencies are those solutions. The redundentcy,(sp?), is a problem no doubt. And should be addressed. But throwing the baby out with the bath water will do no one any good. If I understand what the Paulers want, they are willing to do just that. With the belief that all our problems will be solved. But they aren't looking at the problems created should their every wish come true. Which would be HUGE. 0 -
As far as intelligence failures, the FBI was the main one at fault at 9/11. They had solid evidence of the pilot training going on, but the field agent's report couldn't make it upward in the bloated hierarchy, which had obsolete computer network system. "Government intelligence", is a oxymoron anyway. Pearl Harbor, the Battle of the Budge, the Chinese intervention in Korea, the Tet Offensive, and the World Trade Bombing are outstanding examples of how well it works in the real world.
Dr. Paul knew he could not single-handedly dismantle all the agencies even if was elected president--But he hoped to at least begin the process of curtail their powers and license to run roughshod running their own little power games. Since Lincoln, every president has increased the power of the Federal Government, following Hamilton's blueprint of a strong central government ruled by elites. And that power gets handed off to the next president, regardless if they are Democrats or Republicans, to be used as they wish. Bush's accumulation of power in the last eight years to the executive office will now be used by Obama for his agenda. Will Obama seek to retract the Patriot Act, wiretapping,and restore Posse Comitus and Habeas Corpus? no way. No one gives up power--never mind that it corrupts all that use it, as it abuses those who it was suppose to serve.He will wield that power like wand to solve all our ills and protect us. Bush has done his democratic opponent the greatest favor in the word, pre-heating the the executive position with more power. Just think of the time that will save Obama to accumulate power carry out his edicts! Thanks again, Bush!
Congress it worse than useless as a check and balance against these ongoing abuse of power--They almost all(With Ron Paul excepted) are in the pockets of the lobbyists, and just stand by rubber-stamping bills that whittle away our Constitutional rights and steal our tax dollars to bail out the rich.
It's not just the president that influences policy or creates new agencies, its all his entourage that he appoints to positions that work their mischief in the varied departments in the government. Cheney himself considers the VP position a separate branch of the government, where he can run his own agendas and agendas without oversight. All Presidents payback their henchmen who helped them in their climb to office with influential government positions to use as their own personal power playgrounds.
Ron Paul would have made a great President, because he was in nobody's pocket, and had no personal power agenda. He would have had no one to pay back favors for, unlike most presidents. Most of all, he would have been a do nothing president. When the government does nothing, we are all the better for it.If you don't think so, review how Hoover and FDR did something to cure the depression, or the recent bailout of the banks--Yeah, those really helped! but that's a moot point now. The people have spoken, and our looking forward to Obama to provide everyone with a rainbow and pony--wile he increases his personal power base as president.0 -
WZ,, I agree with you on SO many points. I have never said that changes are not in order. But to scrap everything is not the answer. Yes the FBI made mistakes. There isn't a law enforcement agency in the country that doesn't. But the idea is to cure the cancer without killing the patient. No system is perfect. And NO man is perfect. Thats why they say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I agree that Politicains are corrupt. Both sides to one degree or another. sadly, it's the only way to get anything done. For good or bad. And as pure as the paulers say Paul is, at some point you play ball or get benched, And the President can get benched just like anybody. They get enough votes against him and he can be made moot from day one. I agree that the system is broke. But you won't fix it by gutting it. And you can't fix it from the outside looknig in. I don't have a solution. Not pretending to say I do. But I just don't think Paul did either. At least not a viable one. At least not one that I heard from his supporters. 0 -
What caused Dr Paul to be marginalized was the statement "We should pull out of the Middle east and let Israel fend for herself." Like Patrick Buchanan, no one in the public eye is allowed to criticize or question the claims of the Jews and remain relevant. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
18 comments