RON PAUL ON GUN CONTROL - THIS GUY GETS IT!

[Soul Crusher]

Congressman Ron Paul - Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
Texas Straight Talk ^ | December 8, 2008 | Congressman Ron Paul


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.

________________________ __

RON PAUL GETS IT!

GUN CONTROL ONLY PROTECTS TERRORISTS, CRIMINALS, & TYRANTS

[Decker]

I can fix it in a hurry.

You commit an intentional crime with a gun and you get 20 years added to your sentence.

You commit a crime of negligence, like shooting a hunting partner in the face accidentally, you go away for 5 years.

[Soul Crusher]

I can fix it in a hurry.

You commit an intentional crime with a gun and you get 20 years added to your sentence.

You commit a crime of negligence, like shooting a hunting partner in the face accidentally, you go away for 5 years.

Like that would have stopped the Mubai massacre or the VT shooting???

[shootfighter1]

Agreed.  I'm all for very harsh sentences for armed crime.  There should be very little tolerance.
However, banning guns does not take them out of criminal hands but disarms citizens from the right to protect themselves and their property.

[Soundness]

Ron Paul gets everything.

This is a man that could have saved our country. It may sound miraculous at this point in time, yes, but he knows what steps we need to take, in what direction and he would have the nerve to take them as president.

The one thing he didn't get is elected.  

Do you think if he ran in 2012 he'd get much support despite his age?
He's gained a lot of support from the economic crisis...people are listening to him more than ever...

[Decker]

Like that would have stopped the Mubai massacre or the VT shooting???

I was referring to our country just as Paul was.

[Soul Crusher]

Ron Paul gets everything.

This is a man that could have saved our country. It may sound miraculous at this point in time, yes, but he knows what steps we need to take, in what direction and he would have the nerve to take them as president.

The one thing he didn't get is elected.  

Do you think if he ran in 2012 he'd get much support despite his age?
He's gained a lot of support from the economic crisis...people are listening to him more than ever...

The man preaches and advises medicine for a sick patient who refuses to even realize he is on his death bed in the first place.

Ron Paul tells it like it is.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Do you think if he ran in 2012 he'd get much support despite his age?
He's gained a lot of support from the economic crisis...people are listening to him more than ever...

Apparently he doesn't dress well enough for some people on this board to vote for him.

[Soundness]

Apparently he doesn't dress well enough for some people on this board to vote for him.

WTF? Forward me the thread?

[Hedgehog]

Congressman Ron Paul - Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
Texas Straight Talk ^ | December 8, 2008 | Congressman Ron Paul


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.

________________________ __

RON PAUL GETS IT!

GUN CONTROL ONLY PROTECTS TERRORISTS, CRIMINALS, & TYRANTS

What's the problem with having gun control?

I can honestly tell you that where I live, I am very happy to know that it is illegal for anyone to carry any kind of weapon unless they are out hunting.

This means that if I'm out in a bar, the chance of a guy pulling a gun or a knife out of the open because he's getting insulted - that doesn't happen.

It's funny how Ron Paul mentions that states and municipiatalities are getting finacially strained.

When he was one of the most vocal voices for tax cuts even when the economy was running well.

Which is Ron Paul, do you want the police to have money to do their job - or not?

He's got zero credibility.

Can you believe this guy?

He wants to cut taxes when the economy is running well - and he wants to cut down on expenses when the economy is running bad?

WTF?

Clown.

[Benny B]

What's the problem with having gun control?

I can honestly tell you that where I live, I am very happy to know that it is illegal for anyone to carry any kind of weapon unless they are out hunting.

This means that if I'm out in a bar, the chance of a guy pulling a gun or a knife out of the open because he's getting insulted - that doesn't happen.

It's funny how Ron Paul mentions that states and municipiatalities are getting finacially strained.

When he was one of the most vocal voices for tax cuts even when the economy was running well.

Which is Ron Paul, do you want the police to have money to do their job - or not?

He's got zero credibility.

Can you believe this guy?

He wants to cut taxes when the economy is running well - and he wants to cut down on expenses when the economy is running bad?

WTF?

Clown.

[Soul Crusher]

Typical liberal response.

Everyone is already grossly overtaxed in every area, whether it be sales taxes, real estate taxes, energy taxes, communication taxes, income taxes, fica taxes, fees, levies, assessments, fines.

Ron Paul wants to follow the constitution, unlike you.

People who are undergo a background check to get a CCW or a gun are the least likely to commit crime in your scenario.

We already have 20000 laws on the books regarding guns.  Only do anti-gun zealots think we have no gun control as it is. 

[MuscleMcMannus]

I'm all for guns and gun ownership but it's scary to think of some of the people in this country that could be potential gun owners.  Just look at all the bad drivers. 

Moreover, you think having a well armed populace in Mumbai would have prevented or some how decreased the verocity of the attacks?  Gimme a break.  Very few people have enough training and expertise to execute an armed exchange with assailants properly and effectively.  What Mumbai needed was a very well armed, well trained, and much  more organized response from law enforcement.  The U.S. is very different in this regard.  SWAT teams all over the country are pretty well armed and well trained for the most part.  Most people turn tail and run when they get  into a hand to hand fight.  Carrying a weapon and being able to actually use it in a life or death situation are two VERY different things.  It's like seeing all these wannabe tough guys carrying their little clip pocket knives in their front pockets.  Most of them would piss themselves if they ever got into a confrontation witih someone that required them pulling it out and actually stabbing someone. 

Case in point.......the chinese nutjob that severed someone's head on a bus full of people.  You actually want guns in the hands of the general populace like them?  They'd probably shoot each other on accident. 

[MRDUMPLING]

First off...guns in a bar or in any place that serves alcohol is illegal in most states.  Even if you have a CWP.  They are trying to get that changed here to allow people going to just restaurants to carry their firearm.  If somebody pulls a weapon in a place like a bar, the chances of that happening with a law abiding person is slim to none.

Second...I have read several responses about hand to hand fighting.  Not everybody is trained to protect themselves in hand to hand combat.  Telling somebody to just "duke it out" is a moot point.  Having a CWP means that you have to at least demonstrate how to use the gun properly and safely, and also it is a requirement to take classes.  Most people that I know that do carry take many classes to teach them how to handle and shoot in different scenarios(Thanks Cap for the advice) So if somebody breaks into your house I'm supposed to go Rocky on somebody? 

Third...having a gun and being properly trained to use it is why you are supposed to police yourselves.  A SWAT team will take many long minutes if not longer because they are not normal police.  It takes some time to assemble a SWAT team...I have an good aquaintance on my local SWAT team. 

Fourth...the reason Ron Paul wants to cut taxes besides us being overtaxed is to make the government spend less.  Our federal government does not have that kind of discipline...without getting into all of the details you have to FORCE our government to balance a budget and spend less.

[Soul Crusher]

First off...guns in a bar or in any place that serves alcohol is illegal in most states.  Even if you have a CWP.  They are trying to get that changed here to allow people going to just restaurants to carry there firearm.  If somebody pulls a weapon in a place like a bar, the chances of that happening with a law abiding person is slim to none.

Second...I have read several responses about hand to hand fighting.  Not everybody is trained to protect themselves in hand to hand combat.  Telling somebody to just "duke it out" is a moot point.  Having a CWP means that you have to at least demonstrate how to use the gun properly and safely, and also it is a requirement to take classes.  Most people that I know that do carry take many classes to teach them how to handle and shoot in different scenarios(Thanks Cap for the advice) So if somebody breaks into your house I'm supposed to go Rocky on somebody? 

Third...having a gun and being properly trained to use it is why you are supposed to police yourselves.  A SWAT team will take many long minutes if not longer because they are not normal police.  It takes some time to assemble a SWAT team...I have an good aquaintance on my local SWAT team. 

Fourth...the reason Ron Paul wants to cut taxes besides us being overtaxed is to make the government spend less.  Our federal government does not have that kind of discipline...without getting into all of the details you have to FORCE our government to balance a budget and spend less.

Great post. 

The stalinists & liberals and panzies want everyone disarmed so that only the criminals and govt have weapons.

[Hedgehog]

Typical liberal response.

Everyone is already grossly overtaxed in every area, whether it be sales taxes, real estate taxes, energy taxes, communication taxes, income taxes, fica taxes, fees, levies, assessments, fines.

Ron Paul wants to follow the constitution, unlike you.

Whether you or Ron Paul likes it or not, things like roads, schools and police actually has to be paid for.

Also, when the economy is heating up, instead of cutting taxes and just making things worse, the responsible management would raise taxes to build up a healthy surplus and keep spending in check.

And when the economy goes down, it would be good to have a buffert to spend, then would be the time for the big tax cuts, the big infrastructural investments.

The time to get people spending. To avoid the economy from freezing up.

But Ron Paul is a fcuking idiot.

He doesn't get these basic economic principles.

People who are undergo a background check to get a CCW or a gun are the least likely to commit crime in your scenario.

Tell that to the ghetto gangbangers, sporting AK's.

We already have 20000 laws on the books regarding guns.  Only do anti-gun zealots think we have no gun control as it is.

 

If there is gun control, why then do you have all these criminals out in the streets carrying?


BTW, I love how so many people are fans of Ron Paul without seemingly having a clue about what policies the guy stands for.

To most, Ron Paul is evidently just a guy who "seeks the truth" and believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

[Soul Crusher]

I dont even know where to begin with your lies.

First off - no one says we should pay no taxes, but 50% is too high unless you are a socialist who wants a communistic society.

Second - gang members, felons, cannot get a legal gun permit. 

Third - when you tax people to death like we do now, they dont have extra money to spend.

[MuscleMcMannus]

Second...I have read several responses about hand to hand fighting.  Not everybody is trained to protect themselves in hand to hand combat.  Telling somebody to just "duke it out" is a moot point.  Having a CWP means that you have to at least demonstrate how to use the gun properly and safely, and also it is a requirement to take classes.  Most people that I know that do carry take many classes to teach them how to handle and shoot in different scenarios(Thanks Cap for the advice) So if somebody breaks into your house I'm supposed to go Rocky on somebody? 

No but shooting a weapon in the confines of your own home is an entirely different situation then having a guy walk into a restaurant start blasting people and 20 people pulling out a hand gun and start firing.  That's my point.  It's like driving.  Look at all the irresponsible, idiot drivers out there.  We all have to take tests and learn to drive etc.  But morons still crowd the roads.  And my point about hand to hand combat is this........VERY FEW PEOPLE have the werewithall to defend themselves in a normal situation.  A gun compounds this problem x100.  Meaning, it takes a certain amount of balls, courage, bravery, self control, whatever to rip out a gun and use it properly in an adrenaline craze situation.  3/4 of the societal populace doesn't have it.  Owning guns for home protection is one thing..........having every jane dick and tom walking around with a handgun in their pocket is entirely different.  As the laws are now those people that want/need a gun and a CCW can and should be able to get them.  

[Soul Crusher]

I have a license in NY.

It took me the following:

1.  NRA safety class.
2.  FBI background check
3.  State background check.
4.  Extensive application process

All in all, it took about 6 months.

Do any of you fools think that after going through all of that I am going to rob a bank or stick up and old lady?

[www.BrinkZone.com]

What's the problem with having gun control?

Plenty. Ever consider actually doing some research on the topic? Lets start simple. It’s easy to put together some correlational info that is without proper context or missing data or fails to account for other variables. Anti gun types, being inherently intellectually dishonest, are specialists at that. They appear to feel the end justifies the means, so if ignoring history and fudging facts and data gets guns banned, that’s OK with them. A fun and simple example of how to do it:

Every year the Brady Bunch gives each state a grade for their gun laws. As you would expect (as they being a anti gun/pro gun control oriented group), states with strict gun control laws get high grades and states with less strict laws get lower grades:


STATE . . . . . . Brady Grade,

New York . . . . . . B+
Vermont . . . . . . . D-
New Hampshire . . D-
Maine . . . . . . . . . D-
Massachusetts . . . A-
Connecticut . . . . . A-
Rhode Island . . . . B-

Now, lets compare each of those states to the actual crime rates:


2005 FBI UCR data of crime/homicide rates per 100,000 people:

Region . . . Violent Crime, Homicide Rates
USA National . . 569.2 , 5.6
New York . . . . 445.8 , 4.5
Vermont . . . . . 119.7 , 1.3
New Hampshire 132.0 , 1.4
Maine . . . . . . . 112.2 , 1.4
Massachusetts . 456.9 , 2.7
Connecticut . . . 274.5 , 2.9
Rhode Island . . 251.2 , 3.2

Conclusion: if you want to find the safest place to live in the US, chose the state with the WORST grade from the Brady bunch! Aint playing with numbers fun?

[Soul Crusher]

The anti-gun crowd refuses to accept the fact that we already have massive gun control.

The criminals will never follow any of said laws, whether it be knives, guns, or whatever.

The definitive work on this subject is by John Lott "More Guns - Less Crime".

I have no problem requiring NRA training and background checks and maybe even yearly training to keep brushed up on new laws and skills.

However, what these morons propose is just unbelievable in light of the facts.
   

[Bindare_Dundat]

He doesn't get these basic economic principles.

 

Swedish people understand basic economic principles.

Take the cheapest materials you can find, it can be anything just as long as it can be held together with pins and white glue. Throw some of the parts in a box, preferrably with some pieces missing. Scribble some lines, loops and arrows on a scrap piece of paper and add some numbers to it with the title "Instructions" at the top. Take a black felt marker and hand print, "Finest Swedish Engineering" on the box. Name the furntiure you just created by randomly picking any letters of the alphabet you like to make a word such as, Tidrslak. Sell it for 400% more than the materials cost to idiots around the world.

 

[MRDUMPLING]

Whether you or Ron Paul likes it or not, things like roads, schools and police actually has to be paid for.

Also, when the economy is heating up, instead of cutting taxes and just making things worse, the responsible management would raise taxes to build up a healthy surplus and keep spending in check.

And when the economy goes down, it would be good to have a buffert to spend, then would be the time for the big tax cuts, the big infrastructural investments.

The time to get people spending. To avoid the economy from freezing up.

But Ron Paul is a fcuking idiot.

He doesn't get these basic economic principles.


Tell that to the ghetto gangbangers, sporting AK's.
 

If there is gun control, why then do you have all these criminals out in the streets carrying?


BTW, I love how so many people are fans of Ron Paul without seemingly having a clue about what policies the guy stands for.

To most, Ron Paul is evidently just a guy who "seeks the truth" and believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

That's kind of my point though...criminals will not obey laws period.  Therefore it makes no sense to make gun laws even stricter for law abiding citizens.

I know times are tough, believe me I feel it everyday at work.  The thing is if you are going to reel in government spending now is the time to do it.  I understand why raise taxes to create a "buffer", but if our government would just operate on a budget then there wouldn't be too much concern when we do have a recession.(In a very basic way)

I think Ron Paul "gets it" because of him warning us about this. 

[MRDUMPLING]

No but shooting a weapon in the confines of your own home is an entirely different situation then having a guy walk into a restaurant start blasting people and 20 people pulling out a hand gun and start firing.  That's my point.  It's like driving.  Look at all the irresponsible, idiot drivers out there.  We all have to take tests and learn to drive etc.  But morons still crowd the roads.  And my point about hand to hand combat is this........VERY FEW PEOPLE have the werewithall to defend themselves in a normal situation.  A gun compounds this problem x100.  Meaning, it takes a certain amount of balls, courage, bravery, self control, whatever to rip out a gun and use it properly in an adrenaline craze situation.  3/4 of the societal populace doesn't have it.  Owning guns for home protection is one thing..........having every jane dick and tom walking around with a handgun in their pocket is entirely different.  As the laws are now those people that want/need a gun and a CCW can and should be able to get them.  

The tests for CWP are much more strict than driving.  If 3/4 of the people in that restaraunt are shooting at the same thing...well that's usually a good thing.  Granted, you have a point about people not practicing, not taking extra classes, and panicking instead of keeping their head.  That's why I don't think you will ever see that amount of people carrying at one time.  It still doesn't change the fact that more gun control will not solve anything.

Even if somebody has the balls to simply defend themselves in a situation...doesn't mean they have the training to.  I see having a gun as being the equalizer to that situation if properly trained.  Does that mean everybody should take some type of self defense training?  We already have enough Tapout shirt wearing guys walking around. 

[Soul Crusher]

I believe firmly that anyone with a gun should undergo training.  But that is a good thing!

however, banning law abiding citizens willing undergo background checks, training, etc, seems to me to be not only short sighted, but dangerous.

There are countless stories of people defending themselves with firearms.  Additionally, many times, the cops only write a report and do not prevent crime.