Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I think Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both great, although Romney is probably more electable primarily due to $.


It would be great if these two could be a team and really turnaround our quickly going bankrupt country.
 
I started reading this thread and saw some kind of throw-away statements about gun control, including references to nuclear weapons and Mad Max. My question to everyone is how to balance the THEORY of the 2nd Amendment and the need for effective regulation?



For the sake of disclosure, I am very pro-2nd Amendment and have lived in TX, where concealed carry permits are common. You think Californians are nuts, try Texans! Dallas is a crazy city, yet the residents - many armed to the teeth - have managed to avaoid daily shoot-outs in the streets.



I think we do need waiting periods and background checks, safety training/testing in the form of the current Handgun Safety Certificate system, and mandatory ownership of locks and/or safes. That is common sense, but the line should stop there. If the average person knew just how strict our current laws are, there wouldn't be all this clamoring for MORE gun control.



I'll hop off my soapbox. I think Dr. Paul has great ideas, but is completely unelectable.
 
For any type of weapon CM_Dude? No restriction on what is "reasonable" for a citizen to own?





Remember, "arms" doesn't only encompass guns. At least that's how I interpret it.
 
<i>"My question to everyone is how to balance the THEORY of the 2nd Amendment and the need for effective regulation?"</i><p>

Great question. I do not have <b>THE</b> answer, and would appreciate many opinions.
 
<p>awgee and CM_Dude-</p>

<p>I think that we can safely implement the right to bear arms AND practice gun control. Requiring a license to purchase a gun goes along the same lines as requiring a license to drive a car. Even if you added in mandatory insurance for accidental death, misfire, etc., you would still be able to promote the kind of freedom our founders intended along with the safety and training that was inherent in gun use and ownership in the late 1700's. Once the license was issued, you can require mandatory retesting and competency exams prior to renewal.</p>

<p>jwb- </p>

<p>Taking my license example one step further, it would be simple to add further testing and licensing requirements to heavier ordinance, much like you have to get a special license to drive a bus or big rig. </p>

<p>just my $0.02</p>
 
Nude - Forget the practical aspects for a minute.<p>

According to our forefathers, the right to defend oneself is an inherent right. The right to bear arms is a right given to us as a result of that inherent right. There is no right to drive, inherent or stated in the Constitution. From a legal and a Constitutional standpoint, there is no analogy. There are huge legal differences between rights and priviledges and practical solutions are not given precedence over laws.<p>

The states or other government may not deny rights given in The Constitution. It is not that simple. Is licensure or any other gun control denying a Constitutionally given right. And do not be quick to take a position without considering the consequences of messing with The Constitution.
 
Jwb, interestingly enough - quite a few states allow the ownership of machine guns with the proper federal tax stamp. Yet you don't hear about random machine gun crimes there. In CA, the legislature made a big show of banning .50 caliber rifles, despite the fact that they cost at least $2000, weigh a ton, are huge, and the rounds cost at least $1/ea - hardly street crime material! Same with assault rifles - many of which cost $1000 and up. They sure look menacing, though!



Point is, most gun control legislation has been feel-good crap that helps politicians pad their resumes and does nothing to actually deter gun crime. Criminals do NOT buy guns from gun stores - law-abiding citizens do. Probably the most effective gun crime crackdown in US histoy has been the aggressive state-federal operation in Richmond, Virginia - Project Exile, which is strongly supported by the NRA. These laws and enforcement target the possession of guns by CRIMINALS.



"Project Exile is a federal, state and local effort led by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond that sentences felons convicted of illegally possessing guns to a minimum of five years in prison. Following the implementation of Project Exile, the city's firearm murder rate was cut by nearly 40%.6 Recognizing the program's success, Congress in 1998 approved $2.3 million to implement Project Exile in Philadelphia, Pa., and Camden County, N.J. In 2002, the Bush Department of Justice took the Project Exile concept nationwide, targeting violent felons with guns under Project Safe Neighborhoods." (fromhttp://www.progressiveu.org/191354-fable-iv-gun-control-laws-prevent-crime-www-nra-org)



There has been endless debate about what limits to put on military type weaponry, but I personally think citizens (pursuant to a criminal background check and with regulations regarding the proper storage to prevent easy theft) should be permitted to own just about any personally transportable firearm (rifle, shotgun or handgun).



Nude, I don't think licensing is the answer, as that would imply that firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right (thanks awgee). As for heavier ordinance, remember - that stuff is ridiculously expensive, so we wouldn't be talking about a common practice. Practicality aside - we allow private ownership of aircraft and vehicles that could be used for terrible purposes in the wrong hands. When it comes to government regulation of citizen activity - any crime should be the inappropriate/criminal use, not the ownership of an implement/device/weapon itself.



The background check requirement is Constitutionally sound, as felons are routinely stripped of certain of their Constitutional rights due to their actions. Some states have taken the background check too far, including minor misdemeanors as reasons to strip someone of their right to own a firearm. Hopefully, the US Supreme Court will address these issues soon. They have taken a DC gun-control case and should decide it this year.



Those are my $0.02 - THANK YOU for responding! I think that many people in today's society have forgotten that The Constitution is extremely important and just as relevant today as it was when drafted (possibly even more so). The Bill of Rights is our protection against undue government interference in our daily lives, and I thank Ron Paul profusely for bringing the Constitution back into the daily news cycle.
 
Ok, so what about bombs? Machine guns mounted on helicopters? Mortars? Ignoring costs (criminal elements have resources).





It may seem ridiculous. but I think it's pertinent. Either you allow *everything* as defined by the Constitution or you draw a distinction somewhere.





If you draw that distinction, isn't it an arbitrary limit? Who has the right to make that decision? And if that decision is made, isn't it reasonable to take it a step further and decide there's no logical reason for civilians to own uzis and M-60's?
 
jw - The 2nd ammendment was included so a citizen's right to defend himself from other people or from his own government would not be interfered with. So there is the rub. Where do you draw the line? Not too simple, eh?
 
jwb and awgee - that IS the rub and the conflict between the theory and the practical implementation. The 1968 federal gun control legislation was hugely controversial and some say it was enacted to control a newly restive population. Maybe that's a little out there for some, and there were plenty of high-minded justifications - but this nation existed for decades with heavy wepaons widely available and no outrageous incidents. There will always be criminals who abuse our rights, but we shouldn't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens in an effort to hinder the relatively few criminals.



Explosives are regulated under an entirely different act, and I think that most would agree that the definition of firearms does not include rockets, grenades, etc.



As for Uzis? They're just fancy 9mms! Your garden variety handgun shoots the same cartridge - more accurately! M-60s use the same cartridge as many hunting rifles, but are belt-fed. Many fully legal rifles fire the same same cartridge and can do so almost as fast as an M-60 can. You can actually legally purchase a semi-automatic M-60 today.



What is so frustrating about the crackdown on assault-type rifles is that they are so rarely used in crimes! When CA's ban was proposed, FBI statistics showed that they were almost NEVER used in crimes. But opportunistic legislators latched onto the tragedy in Stockton to pad their legacies as "crime fighters" - what absolute hogwash!
 
<p>awgee-</p>

<p>The Constitution was a great framework for the building of a free nation, but it was also vague and full of holes. As evidence of that, I point to Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26... all of which deal with who gets to vote. It wasn't intended to be a document set in stone and forever immutable, but adaptable to future needs while preventing tyranny by the government. Pointing to the Second Amendment and declaring it to be absolute and immutable seems a bit naive. In historical context, the framers clearly were trying to prevent the government from ever barring the people from being able to protect themselves from that same government. However, the Second Amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms must be free from any regulation, just infringement. Infringe, as defined by M-W.com, means <em>to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another; to defeat or frustrate</em>. Now, if you want to equate regulation with infringement, then you might have a point that requiring training, insurance, and renewal is unconstitutional. I don't see it that way.</p>

<p>Going back to my analogy, you are free to buy any car you want in this country, even import them from other countries if you like, but to drive them on public roads and highways, you must have a license, you must register the car, you must insure the car. And yet, the constitution does not specifically give the states or the Federal government the power to "infringe" on the right of the people to travel from point "a" to point "b" in whatever manner they deem preferable. It would seem to me that under the 10th amendment, this "right" belongs to the people and yet in each and every state we have a plethora of laws, regulations, and license requirements that 'infringe' on our right to drive.</p>

<p>It is clear that the government is not allowed to ban gun ownership outright, but I think the government is allowed to treat gun owners the same as car owners and hold them to a minimum standard of responsibility and liability for the care and use of that gun. I also think that just as you aren't allowed to drive an unregistered car off of private property or without a driver's license, that you should not be allowed to carry a gun off private property unless licensed. However, the reverse is also true; if you carry a license for a registered gun, are insured for a minimum of liability, and have met all other requirements, you should be able to carry that weapon at any and all times without worry. This view allows private ownership of a gun as long as it is kept/used on private property, doesn't violate the Second Amendment, and yet provides legal "bearing" of arms while simultaneously ensuring the relative safety of the general population and still providing a way for the people to overthrow a tyrannical government.</p>
 
<p>I don't want to live in a society where people are allowed to own any type of life destroying device they want - I do not believe the constitution was intended to allow people to behave in any way they see fit - and that includes their purchasing behavior, collecting behavior and extra-curricular activity behavior - we try to maintain as much freedom as possible without infringing on other people's freedom - that is the inherent conflict of American society. I feel that allowing others to purchse and hold extreme life destroying devices infringes on my freedoms - now obviously that has to balanced with thier rights too. </p>

<p>It seems strange to me to argue whether or not gun control should exist - of course it should - we put controls on all aspects of life in order to maintain a society. The level of control is the issue is up for debate.</p>
 
Nude,



I think that what you have outlined is generally how some states, including CA, have been treating the gun control issue. While CA doesn't call for a "license" it does require testing, the possession of a Handgun Safety Certificate (issued after a written test is passed), ownership of a safe, and passing a rigorous background check. Offenses that prevent ownership of a gun in CA include misdemeanors such as marijuana possession, simple battery/assualt, any gun-related misdemeanor, and even a TEMPORARY restraining order. Further, the CA DOJ can effectively prevent you from purchasing a firearm if they cannot locate your "file." The CA DOJ is given broad discretion - many think overbroard discretion.



You cannot transport a gun in public unless it is in a locked container. You cannot discharge a firearm outside of designated areas. If you own a registered "assault rifle" you may only discharge that assualt rifle in specific designated areas - doing so anywhere else (even other designated shooting areas) gets it consfiscated and you arrested. While 38 states issue carry concealed weapons permits to anyone legally qualified to own one, Southern CA law-enforcement agencies seldom, if ever, issue such permits.



While I asked this question to see where people stand on the conflict between the THEORY of the 2nd Amendment and the practical application of gun-control legislation, I think it is a valuable debate - especially here in urbanized, educated Southern CA. Most people, my friends and family included, just don't see the "need" for owning guns - which is entirely beside the point. The CA gun-control scheme is an example of the reasonable restrictions you describe going awry. In fact, I heartily disagree with your licensing scenario - simply because it gives the state discretion where they should have none (except in the case of convicted felons).



I am a USMC veteran and a gun owner. My government trusted me with weapons that could bring down jet-aircraft and level city blocks, but now they tell me I can't own a particular type of handgun? I have never, and will never, use any firearm illegally. The government literally has no right to tell me what firearm I can or cannot own, yet it does, and because I am law-abiding, want to raise kids, own property and participate in this society, I comply. I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court finally settles this issue on the side of liberty and freedom, but if they don't - I will comply.



We have gone way too far over to the side of government controlling the people, as opposed to the intended system of the people controlling government. Guns are just one, easily demonized, example of that. Ron Paul gets that, and for that alone he should be elected President.
 
<p>cm dude - forgive me if I am picking on one point of your statement but why (and I do really want to hear your answer) do you feel that since the govt allowed you to handle large scale weapons while in thier employment should you now, as a regular citizen, continue to have the right to do so? Shouldn't we bestow extra rights and responsibilities on the people that are serving our country whether that be in the service or as policement, fireman, etc?</p>
 
<p>Movingaround,</p>

<p>I agree that the government must regulate gun-ownership - but that should be limited to those that have been convicted of felonies or adjudicated mentally ill or otherwise incapable of responsibly handling/owning a firearm. Age restrictions are appropriate, as are one-strike, you're out (use a firearm in a crime, you never get to own one again) regulations.</p>

<p>Someone owning a destructive device does not infringe upon your rights unless they use or abuse that destructive device in a manner that impacts you.</p>

<p>Arguably, an automobile is a more destructive device than a firearm, yet automobiles and their owners are not routinely targeted for discrimination. Nude's post about licensing address the automobile issue, however, so I can't really make that comparison!</p>

<p>I choose to live in Southern California, because I absolutely love it here and would live nowhere else. The legislature of our state has passed stringent gun control legislation which many citizens support, so I comply with the laws of the state I choose to live in. </p>

<p>I hoped that this debate would provoke thought on the subject, and it certainly has. I sincerely appreciate everyone's thoughts and look forward to more!</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Movingaround,</p>

<p>I don't think I should be allowed to keep a Stinger missile or MLRS, etc. at home, but it strikes me as ridiculous that a state can then tell a veteran that he can't own a shotgun with a pistol-grip, or that he will go to jail if he takes his legally-purchased civilian version of an M-16 to a non-sanctioned outdoor range - the same range where someone is legally shooting another semi-automatic rifle of the same caliber - just not one on the "black rifle" list cooked up by legislative aides in Sacramento.</p>

<p>I absolutely agree that military heavy ordinance should be limited to military applications, but I also think that willing veterans should be able to act as a sanctioned militia and keep personal infantry weapons at home (properly stored and accountable). When I lived in AR, the National Guard took their M-16s home with them, for instance. Can you imagine that happening in CA!?</p>

<p>My point, while seemingly absurd in the context of crowded, crazy urban Southern California, is simple - why ASSUME law-abiding citizens are going to go on a shooting spree if allowed to own certain types of guns? </p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>I see a difference between cars and guns - there are numerous uses for a car that are not destructive to anybody's life at all. The purpose of a car is not to kill - it is to transport. That is not true of guns for the most part. </p>

<p>I think that if someone even threatens to use a destructive weapon that infringes on my rights - they don't have to actually use it to infringe. </p>

<p>I also think that there is a generalized freedom to live a productive life that isn't necessarily easy to take down to an individual level (hence the conflict between indidvidual rights and the need for societal rules). In a society where people would be allowed to buy and carry weapons in whatever manner they chose I do believe that my freedom to live a productive life for others would be infringed upon. </p>

<p> </p>
 
It doesn't say "firearm" CM_Dude, it says "arms."





Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation, but that means any sort of weapon, including ordinance.





And I think it's disingenuous to only talk about the cartridges fired and ignore the rate of fire. There can be no mistake that these guns can cause a lot of destruction in the hands of the wrong people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top