NOW will you lemmings get IT??

[jetflyer]

Good points. The main reason for the 2nd Ammendment was to keep the government from being able to oppress and dominate its people.

Because of recent Presidential Orders, the President can declare martial law voiding the Constitution if there is another terrorist attack. They may try to take the guns. I will make sure mine doesn't get taken.

I believe we need Ron Paul for this reason too. He will protect American's rights more than any one of these neocons. Don't think that Hillary would be different either. She's "Bush in a pant suit" on almost all issues even wanting to increase health care coverage just like Bush increased the ridiculous expensive medicare prescription drug package that is helping bankrupt the U.S.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Good points. The main reason for the 2nd Ammendment was to keep the government from being able to oppress and dominate its people.

Because of recent Presidential Orders, the President can declare martial law voiding the Constitution if there is another terrorist attack. They may try to take the guns. I will make sure mine doesn't get taken.

I believe we need Ron Paul for this reason too. He will protect American's rights more than any one of these neocons. Don't think that Hillary would be different either. She's "Bush in a pant suit" on almost all issues even wanting to increase health care coverage just like Bush increased the ridiculous expensive medicare prescription drug package that is helping bankrupt the U.S.

Some days it makes you feel all the problems are unsolvable.

 

[jetflyer]

Some days it makes you feel all the problems are unsolvable.

I used to think the problems were unsolvable until I learned about Ron Paul and realized he was the answer.

Giulliani on Gun Control(He's for it)(3 mins):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64aItXm2Pc4&feature=related

The History of Gun Control and how throughout history after gun control has been tightened the governments have killed millions of their innocent defenseless subjects on about 10 different occasions.(3 mins)(A must watch, there are better ones but this is short and to the point):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64aItXm2Pc4&feature=related

Hitler enacted gun control in 1935 and we saw what happened there. That is just one example.

 

[PCL_128]

I know, I know....it won't stop the criminals from getting what they want.

If you do know that, then you should be opposed to gun control, because you acknowledge that it simply won't work. Gun control is a feel-good measure that does nothing to actually stop crime. In fact, it usually results in an increase in violent crime (ref Wash DC, Australia, etc...). Sorry, but nobody's getting my guns.

 

[jetflyer]

If you do know that, then you should be opposed to gun control, because you acknowledge that it simply won't work. Gun control is a feel-good measure that does nothing to actually stop crime. In fact, it usually results in an increase in violent crime (ref Wash DC, Australia, etc...). Sorry, but nobody's getting my guns.

Amen brotha. I agree with you. (Can't believe I just said that) Mark this date in history.....

The craziness that has been happening in Australia is talked about in the video about gun control I provided.

Gun control=bad idea....

Gotta run, nice chatting with you guys today... Baby needs to feed.

Jet

 

[jke406]

news flash: ron paul is not even remotely electable. a vote for that guy would be like a vote for hillary.

 

[PCL_128]

news flash: ron paul is not even remotely electable. a vote for that guy would be like a vote for Hillary.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!! At least someone else is living in the real world.

 

[jetflyer]

From: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmVkNGYwYzA1ZmJhMDBjOTAxN2IyZjc2YzEwOGUxZjk=

.RON PAUL
Zogby Predicts Ron Paul Could Get 15 to 18 Percent in New Hampshire
On the Sean Hannity radio program, pollster John Zogby said that Texas Congressman Ron Paul could end up surprising the field - and "embarass a lot of the frontrunners" by wildly exceeding expectations taking 15 to 18 percent in the New Hampshire primary.

What is electable? To be elected one has to get more votes than the opponents.

Ron Paul is gaining momentum. His support that would give him votes is rising exponentially after his one day money bomb. If his support grows more than his opponents, and he has more of his supporters vote for him than his rivals, he wins.

Ron Paul is electable.

You'd realize that if you heard his message. He motivates. He inspires. He makes people believe they can have freedom and an honest limited government again.

Jet

 

[PCL_128]

An entertaining video with Ron Paul on trash TV in the 80s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k

Yeah, this is the guy that can be the leader of the free world.

 

[Patriot328]

I'm surprised "upholding the constitution" is #4 on the issue list. It should be number 1. If so, a lot of the other items on that list (tax reform, gun control, etc) wouldn't need to be there.

Out all the people running for president, I guarantee Ron Paul is the only one that will do his best to uphold the constitution. I think FT is a distant second, and the rest won't even be close.

It's a different time now than it was then. People were not killing other people for the equivalent $40. There were no drive by shootings. Gang warfare and drug deals were non-existent.

As far as it being part of my top 5.... I never said I am a Constitutional purist.

It's the TYPE of weapon that I would restrict for the most part, and stricter background checks. These gun show "loopholes" need to be addressed. I know, I know....it won't stop the criminals from getting what they want.

None of those things you listed are a "gun problem". There are underlying issues of drugs, gang warfare, etc that have absolutely nothing to do with firearms.

Can you also explain what a "gunshow loophole" is? Do you mean private sales at gunshows? If you do, the reason you're allowed to buy a gun from a private citizen at a gunshow is because you're permitted to do that outside a gunshow, too. It's not a loophole, it's the way it is.

If you buy a gun from a gun dealer at a gunshow, you have to go through the standard background check just like you would if you went to a brick and mortar gun store. If you buy a gun from a person selling part of his personal collection, it would be the same as buying it from him privately from his home, etc. There's no background check needed for private sales.

If you're going to attack the private sale of firearms, at least do it properly and don't hide behind the facade of "gunshow loophole" because it doesn't exist.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

If you're going to attack the private sale of firearms, at least do it properly and don't hide behind the facade of "gunshow loophole" because it doesn't exist.

That's why I put it in quotes. Normally a private sale would not involve thousands of people gathering for the same purpose, such as at a gun show. So maybe "loophole" was not the best term. Maybe a better way to say would be that it makes potentially "questionable" private sales much easier for a large number of people at one time. I think that even for a private sale, you should have to go to a FFL dealer and have the background check done.

I'm a gun owner. I do not think that assault weapons have any business anywhere other than a military use.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

None of those things you listed are a "gun problem". There are underlying issues of drugs, gang warfare, etc that have absolutely nothing to do with firearms.

Yes, I know that. Do you think those people should be protected in their "right to bear arms"?

 

[PCL_128]

I think that even for a private sale, you should have to go to a FFL dealer and have the background check done.

And how exactly would you enforce such an absurd notion? Gun registration? It will be a cold day in hell before I tell the government how many guns I own.

 

[jke406]

relevant bumper sticker:

"Ted Kennedy has killed more people than my gun."

 

[jke406]

Ron Paul, pull it out.

From the Oct 8th Seattle P.I.

Asked his policy on U.S. troops fighting in Iraq [Ron Paul] the TexasCongressman, now serving his 10th term, replies: "I would get them home as soon as possible."

And U.S. troops in Europe?

"I would get them home," Paul said in an interview Tuesday. "Having them stationed abroad doesn't serve our national interest, and that goes for forces in Japan and Korea.

"We should only send U.S. forces abroad when our security is directly threatened. Right now, nobody threatens our national security."

you don't even hear a Democrat claim that "nobody threatens our national security." Electable? I think not.