User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 3:13:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Freedom?
The people here don't want freedom. That is painfully obvious.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 3:23:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Freedom? The people here don't want freedom. That is painfully obvious.... Except for freedom from responsibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 3:24:21 PM EDT
[#3]
For the record, I fully support the repeal of the 1996 Gun Free Schools Act, one of Newt "No New Gun Control" Gingrich's many broken promises. A sop to the Dole for President campaign because the Republicans were terrified of the Soccer Moms in 1996. Having said all that, the GOA's alert is, to put it charitably, misleading. The federal statute allows for persons with a valid CCW permit to carry on school grounds, and it also makes exemptions for transport of guns in trunks of cars and guns on private property. http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#Sec. 922 (2) (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm: (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license; (iii) that is: (I) not loaded;and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motorvehicle; (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone; (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity;or (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities. (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm: (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program; (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between aschool in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;or (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity. The problem with "Gun Free School Zones" has almost always been due to poorly-written state laws, not the federal law, which I believe has not even resulted in one prosecution because it predecessor was slapped down by the Supreme Court in the Lopez decision. So, nice try, but once again the GOA makes a mountain out of a molehill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 3:25:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: For the record, I fully support the repeal of the 1996 Gun Free Schools Act, one of Newt "No New Gun Control" Gingrich's many broken promises. A sop to the Dole for President campaign because the Republicans were terrified of the Soccer Moms in 1996. Having said all that, the GOA's alert is, to put it charitably, misleading. The federal statute allows for persons with a valid CCW permit to carry on school grounds, and it also makes exemptions for transport of guns in trunks of cars and guns on private property. http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#Sec. 922 (2) (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm: (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license; (iii) that is: (I) not loaded;and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motorvehicle; (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone; (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity;or (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities. (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm: (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program; (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between aschool in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;or (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity. The problem with "Gun Free School Zones" has almost always been due to poorly-written state laws, not the federal law, which I believe has not even resulted in one prosecution because it predecessor was slapped down by the Supreme Court in the Lopez decision. So, nice try, but once again the GOA makes a mountain out of a molehill. Figgers.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 3:39:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: For the record, I fully support the repeal of the 1996 Gun Free Schools Act, one of Newt "No New Gun Control" Gingrich's many broken promises. A sop to the Dole for President campaign because the Republicans were terrified of the Soccer Moms in 1996. So, nice try, but once again the GOA makes a mountain out of a molehill. Figgers.... Well, if the GOA and Ron Paul can get this passed, then more power to them. It's an idiotic law that is, as far as I know, never enforced on the federal level. Get rid of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 3:42:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
For the record, I fully support the repeal of the 1996 Gun Free Schools Act, one of Newt "No New Gun Control" Gingrich's many broken promises. A sop to the Dole for President campaign because the Republicans were terrified of the Soccer Moms in 1996.
Having said all that, the GOA's alert is, to put it charitably, misleading. The federal statute allows for persons with a valid CCW permit to carry on school grounds, and it also makes exemptions for transport of guns in trunks of cars and guns on private property. http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#Sec. 922 (2) (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is:
(I) not loaded;and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motorvehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity;or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
(3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm:
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;
(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between aschool in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;or
(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.
The problem with "Gun Free School Zones" has almost always been due to poorly-written state laws, not the federal law, which I believe has not even resulted in one prosecution because it predecessor was slapped down by the Supreme Court in the Lopez decision. So, nice try, but once again the GOA makes a mountain out of a molehill.
Figgers.... Getting rid of the safe zones will not change the TX state law that says I can't carry into school. my carry pistol gets locked in my truck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 5:27:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
I'm impressed...... Ron Paul has my vote, for sure. He's the only candidate who practices what he preaches. His voting history aligns perfectly with what he says. He's also polling the best, out of any other republican, when put up against obummer... He has the best chance of winning the general because he's more popular amongst the so called swing vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 5:30:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Paulbot
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 5:40:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm impressed...... Ron Paul has my vote, for sure. He's the only candidate who practices what he preaches. His voting history aligns perfectly with what he says. He's also polling the best, out of any other republican, when put up against obummer... He has the best chance of winning the general because he's more popular amongst the so called swing vote. +1 Only Romney is polling better against Obama right now, and even that is debatable. I think it will be harder for Paul to win the Republican primary.than it will be for him to win the general election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 5:42:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm impressed...... Ron Paul has my vote, for sure. He's the only candidate who practices what he preaches. His voting history aligns perfectly with what he says. He's also polling the best, out of any other republican, when put up against obummer... He has the best chance of winning the general because he's more popular amongst the so called swing vote. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 5:45:34 PM EDT
[#11]
I want someone to name one of the republican candidates that would be more pro gun than Ron Paul. Not one of those bastards would veto an AWB if it came down the pike, and all it would take is some shooting like the Oslo shooting to turn the opinion of every blue dog dem and fucking RINO against the 2nd amendment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 5:47:26 PM EDT
[#12]
It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped.
Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:00:21 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
I want someone to name one of the republican candidates that would be more pro gun than Ron Paul. Not one of those bastards would veto an AWB if it came down the pike, and all it would take is some shooting like the Oslo shooting to turn the opinion of every blue dog dem and fucking RINO against the 2nd amendment. I think Gary Johnson would do good also. Unfortunately, he is getting the "2008 Ron Paul" treatment by the media. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:02:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. Or maybe this will never happen because most members of Congress really don't believe in the 2nd amendment. They only pay it lip service every 4 years. Leave it to arfcom, however, to gripe about one of the few congressmen who does support the 2nd amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:08:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I want someone to name one of the republican candidates that would be more pro gun than Ron Paul. Not one of those bastards would veto an AWB if it came down the pike, and all it would take is some shooting like the Oslo shooting to turn the opinion of every blue dog dem and fucking RINO against the 2nd amendment. I think Gary Johnson would do good also. Unfortunately, he is getting the "2008 Ron Paul" treatment by the media. I forgot about him, see how effective the media is at shoving someone into the shadows. I think he would too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:10:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. Or maybe this will never happen because most members of Congress really don't believe in the 2nd amendment. They only pay it lip service every 4 years. Leave it to arfcom, however, to gripe about one of the few congressmen who does support the 2nd amendment. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:10:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. Or maybe this will never happen because most members of Congress really don't believe in the 2nd amendment. They only pay it lip service every 4 years. Leave it to arfcom, however, to gripe about one of the few congressmen who does support the 2nd amendment. No maybe to it. It won't happen. Because Ron Paul never succeeds; he simply pays lip service to liberty, freedom, and fiscal responsibility, but the blame for his unbroken, continuous string of failures, always falls elsewhere. But Ron Paul does vote against every spending bill, even those he stuffs his own political pork into. What a guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:13:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Ron Paul - R3VOLution! Give us back our CONSTITUTION!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:13:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Why not repeal the Gun free zone law than make this new law?
Maybe it's easier to get a law passed in DC than repealed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:16:21 PM EDT
[#20]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:19:53 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For the record, I fully support the repeal of the 1996 Gun Free Schools Act, one of Newt "No New Gun Control" Gingrich's many broken promises. A sop to the Dole for President campaign because the Republicans were terrified of the Soccer Moms in 1996.
So, nice try, but once again the GOA makes a mountain out of a molehill.
Figgers.... Well, if the GOA and Ron Paul can get this passed, then more power to them. It's an idiotic law that is, as far as I know, never enforced on the federal level. Get rid of it. It's a start - we need to get rid of probably 80% of the US Code, and let the States handle the business the Fed should never have encroached on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:21:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
No maybe to it. It won't happen. Because Ron Paul never succeeds; he simply pays lip service to liberty, freedom, and fiscal responsibility, but the blame for his unbroken, continuous string of failures, always falls elsewhere. But Ron Paul does vote against every spending bill, even those he stuffs his own political pork into. What a guy. As for the cheap shot about Ron Paul's pork, how is it that you probably claim tax deductions yet rail against federal spending? Does that make you a hypocrite also? I don't think so. People in his district pay federal taxes and he merely puts their earmark requests into the system, then votes against the bills every time they come up for a vote. Paul returns money that he doesn't spend every year to the federal treasury and he refuses to participate in the Congressional pension program (a decision likely costing him millions of dollars). He is one of the few honest politicians in Washington, yet still not good enough for some here. Anyway, do you really think a Ron Paul administration would spend more than one led by Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry? Really? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:24:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. Or maybe this will never happen because most members of Congress really don't believe in the 2nd amendment. They only pay it lip service every 4 years. Leave it to arfcom, however, to gripe about one of the few congressmen who does support the 2nd amendment. No maybe to it. It won't happen. Because Ron Paul never succeeds; he simply pays lip service to liberty, freedom, and fiscal responsibility, but the blame for his unbroken, continuous string of failures, always falls elsewhere. But Ron Paul does vote against every spending bill, even those he stuffs his own political pork into. What a guy. Not sure if trolling or just very stupid. So you think the Feds should spend all the money the States give to them, without taking any back? If I was in that position, I would try to get as many tax dollars as possible given back to my state. All your statements prove is that people YOU elect hate liberty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:26:48 PM EDT
[#24]
I'm not sure what your point is, other than to mindlessly bash Ron Paul and his supporters. Are you suggesting that people should not be involved in politics and donate to the candidates of their choice? Or are you suggesting that Barack Obama can be defeated by a candidate who doesn't raise any money? Many experts are predicting that Mr. Obama will raise $1 billion dollars for his re-election campaign. Ironically, however, their is some truth in the image you posted. Paul has raised more money from people in the US military than all the other candidates combined (including Obama). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:34:11 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: For the record, I fully support the repeal of the 1996 Gun Free Schools Act, one of Newt "No New Gun Control" Gingrich's many broken promises. A sop to the Dole for President campaign because the Republicans were terrified of the Soccer Moms in 1996. So, nice try, but once again the GOA makes a mountain out of a molehill. Figgers.... Well, if the GOA and Ron Paul can get this passed, then more power to them. It's an idiotic law that is, as far as I know, never enforced on the federal level. Get rid of it. It's a start - we need to get rid of probably 80% of the US Code, and let the States handle the business the Fed should never have encroached on. yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:38:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. Or maybe this will never happen because most members of Congress really don't believe in the 2nd amendment. They only pay it lip service every 4 years. Leave it to arfcom, however, to gripe about one of the few congressmen who does support the 2nd amendment. Yep. My cynical vitriol is not directed towards Rep. Paul, at least not in this case. I don't think this bill is going anywhere, but then again I never dreamed Obama would sign a bill with CCW in National Parks attached. If Paul can attach it to some major piece of legislation the Dems want –– maybe a compromise debt ceiling bill –– then anything's possible. No, my criticism here is directed towards the GOA, who once again use distortion and hyperbole to make gun owners think the GOA is out there protecting their rights, when in reality they're just trolling for donations. It would be nice to get rid of this law, but from what I understand NO ONE, not even a school shooter, has been charged in federal court using this law in the 15 years since it was passed. When one adds the protections for private property and CCW permittees and locked vehicles already in the law this is probably the least important gun law to target for repeal.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:42:19 PM EDT
[#27]
In
ETA: He's got my vote. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:43:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm impressed...... Ron Paul has my vote, for sure. He's the only candidate who practices what he preaches. His voting history aligns perfectly with what he says. He's also polling the best, out of any other republican, when put up against obummer... He has the best chance of winning the general because he's more popular amongst the so called swing vote. As I recall, he has had many earmarks. ETA: Good bill though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 6:59:16 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:29:29 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Are you saying that Ron Paul is only paying lip service? (Pssst... "every four years" is for Presidents, not reps or sens)
Quoted:
It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. Or maybe this will never happen because most members of Congress really don't believe in the 2nd amendment. They only pay it lip service every 4 years. Leave it to arfcom, however, to gripe about one of the few congressmen who does support the 2nd amendment. Who's griping? I am encouraging Ron Paul to harness his Presidential-level Leadership abilities to push through his righteous agenda. Do you doubt he can do this, heretic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2011 7:37:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
There's nothing cheap about Ron Paul's pork.As for the cheap shot about Ron Paul's pork... ...how is it that you probably claim tax deductions yet rail against federal spending?
Because if you lower spending, you don't need as much revenue, therefore MORE deductions will support the idea of opposing Federal Spending. Basic stuff here. People in his district pay federal taxes and he merely puts their earmark requests into the system, then votes against the bills every time they come up for a vote. He gets credit as an opponent to Big Government spending by voting against the spending bills. Yet his actions (earmarks) bring Federal Spending to his district, and with Federal Dollars comes regulations, mandates and Bigger Government. You said something about hypocrisy. Paul returns money that he doesn't spend every year to the federal treasury and he refuses to participate in the Congressional pension program (a decision likely costing him millions of dollars). He is one of the few honest politicians in Washington, yet still not good enough for some here. He's a slippery huckster who doesn't need that money, because he has fooled so many rubes into giving him their money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 2:59:52 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
No maybe to it. It won't happen. Because Ron Paul never succeeds; he simply pays lip service to liberty, freedom, and fiscal responsibility, but the blame for his unbroken, continuous string of failures, always falls elsewhere. But Ron Paul does vote against every spending bill, even those he stuffs his own political pork into. What a guy. As for the cheap shot about Ron Paul's pork, how is it that you probably claim tax deductions yet rail against federal spending? Does that make you a hypocrite also? I don't think so. People in his district pay federal taxes and he merely puts their earmark requests into the system, then votes against the bills every time they come up for a vote. Paul returns money that he doesn't spend every year to the federal treasury and he refuses to participate in the Congressional pension program (a decision likely costing him millions of dollars). He is one of the few honest politicians in Washington, yet still not good enough for some here. Anyway, do you really think a Ron Paul administration would spend more than one led by Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry? Really? Here's an excellent example as to why I claim tax deductions: http://chip91.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects/ I don't want some double talking, two faced, pork creating, hypocrite of a politician getting his grubby hands on my hard-earned money, taking it from me, removing it from my home state's economy, and spending it on clearly UNCONSTITUIONAL pork barrel projects in his own home state. Spending my money in the unconstitutional manner that Ron Paul has done proves he hates the constitution and liberty. If Ron Paul really wanted to see tax money returned to the people, he would return it to those from which it was seized rather than redistributing it to his district for unconstitutional spending. Or better yet, see to it that wealth isn't seized from it's rightful owners in the first place. He is a fraud, a huckster and a charleton. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 3:30:59 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
He is a fraud, a huckster and a charleton. Paul wants to abolish the IRS. No other Republican, except for maybe Gary Johnson is talking about that. The other Republicans will simply continue the status quo. Maybe under an establishment Republican, we will pay 52% of our income in taxes versus 53% under a second Obama term (or is that a fourth Bush term or sixth Clinton term?). Big deal. It doesn't matter in the big picture. Like I said before, does anyone really believe that a Ron Paul administration would outspend a Romney, Perry, or Obama administration? Gandhi said first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then the fight you. Then you win. 2008, people on here ignored Paul and laughed at him. Now the "talking points" have changed to fighting him. Good. It means he is making progress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 3:41:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Because if you lower spending, you don't need as much revenue, therefore MORE deductions will support the idea of opposing Federal Spending. Basic stuff here. Yet his actions (earmarks) bring Federal Spending to his district, and with Federal Dollars comes regulations, mandates and Bigger Government. He's a slippery huckster who doesn't need that money, because he has fooled so many rubes into giving him their money. And when is the last spending was lowered at the Federal level? I would guess 1946, right after WWII. So you think if we pay less in taxes, the federal government will spend less? Really? Are you serious? Tax cuts during Bush, Reagan, and Clinton do not support your case. At all. If the money wasn't earmarked, it would still be spent. The only difference is that bureaucrats within the Obama administration would decide how it was spent instead of members of Congress. The "earmarks" issue is a red herring to avoid discussing the real causes of our budget problems. It's like being married to a woman who has put on a hundred pounds, is cheating on you, stealing from your bank account, and leaving using condoms from her new boyfriend all over the house. And all she wants to talk about is how you left the toilet seat up 3 years ago while on vacation. As for these "regulation" you speak of, remind me again of how many pages the Federal Registry decreased by under our last Republican president. Ron Paul isn't perfect, but I agree with him more than any other of the candidates. Equally important, he has a thirty year track record of saying the same thing. Thirty years ago, Bill Clinton was in Moscow doing God-knows-what. George Bush was an alcoholic living off daddy's money. And Barack Obama, well, nobody knows what Obama was doing 10 years ago let alone 30. The last thing we need is another stooge like those clowns. Paul has a good track record compared to the other bozos in the Republican Primary. For example, 20 years ago, Rick Perry was gallivanting around Texas trying to jin up support for Al Gore. Bachmann was a lawyer for the IRS. Cain was running the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City ,and so on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 3:41:18 AM EDT
[#35]
*YAWN*
How many States will the tax-dollar spending hypocrite win this time? GOA and Ron Paul. Neither have accomplished anything but sucking dollars from donations or taxpayers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 3:48:22 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
He is a fraud, a huckster and a charleton. Paul wants to abolish the IRS. No other Republican, except for maybe Gary Johnson is talking about that. He's retiring. It's all talk. He uses it to raise funds from folks like you. The other Republicans will simply continue the status quo. Maybe under an establishment Republican, we will pay 52% of our income in taxes versus 53% under a second Obama term (or is that a fourth Bush term or sixth Clinton term?). Big deal. It doesn't matter in the big picture. Ron Paul is the very definition of the "Status Quo". He has served for decades without changing ANYTHING. He's even taken to breeding additional members of the government to continue his legacy of action-less talk. Like I said before, does anyone really believe that a Ron Paul administration would outspend a Romney, Perry, or Obama administration? Yes, and a Superman Administration would eliminate the need for a Department of Defense. Gandhi said first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then the fight you. Then you win. 2008, people on here ignored Paul and laughed at him. Now the "talking points" have changed to fighting him. Good. It means he is making progress. He's Old. He's retiring. It's over. The only progress he's making is in his fundraising. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 3:56:32 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because if you lower spending, you don't need as much revenue, therefore MORE deductions will support the idea of opposing Federal Spending. Basic stuff here. Yet his actions (earmarks) bring Federal Spending to his district, and with Federal Dollars comes regulations, mandates and Bigger Government. He's a slippery huckster who doesn't need that money, because he has fooled so many rubes into giving him their money. And when is the last spending was lowered at the Federal level? I would guess 1946, right after WWII. So you think if we pay less in taxes, the federal government will spend less? Really? Are you serious? Tax cuts during Bush, Reagan, and Clinton do not support your case. At all. So you support paying more in taxes as a means to curtail spending? If the money wasn't earmarked, it would still be spent. The only difference is that bureaucrats within the Obama administration would decide how it was spent instead of members of Congress. The "earmarks" issue is a red herring to avoid discussing the real causes of our budget problems. It's not a red herring if you are claiming to be a "small government" supporter. It brings the Federal Government into your district with mandates and regulations. It also enlarges the government. As for these "regulation" you speak of, remind me again of how many pages the Federal Registry decreased by under our last Republican president. It's true, the President did sign the spending bills that Ron Paul loaded with pork and regulations. Ron Paul isn't perfect, but I agree with him more than any other of the candidates. Equally important, he has a thirty year track record of saying the same thing. Thirty years ago, Bill Clinton was in Moscow doing God-knows-what. George Bush was an alcoholic living off daddy's money. And Barack Obama, well, nobody knows what Obama was doing 10 years ago let alone 30. The last thing we need is another stooge like those clowns. Paul has a good track record compared to the other bozos in the Republican Primary. For example, 20 years ago, Rick Perry was gallivanting around Texas trying to jin up support for Al Gore. Bachmann was a lawyer for the IRS. Cain was running the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City ,and so on. 30 years of nothing. Not a single solitary accomplishment. He's a really old man who merely prattles on about stuff. He'll fit in well at the Home, when he soon retires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 6:47:17 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
He is a fraud, a huckster and a charleton. Paul wants to abolish the IRS. So what ? I want to walk on Mars. What Ron Paul really wants is to retire and for the suckers to keep sending him money until he does. ETA: I will walk on Mars before Ron Paul abolishes the IRS, or, for that matter does anything else of note other than raise funds with the assistance of those that spam message boards on his behalf. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 6:56:32 AM EDT
[#39]
How many prosecutions have happened under this law because somebody drove down a major road past a school with a gun in their car/van/ect?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 7:37:03 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. Or maybe this will never happen because most members of Congress really don't believe in the 2nd amendment. They only pay it lip service every 4 years. Leave it to arfcom, however, to gripe about one of the few congressmen who does support the 2nd amendment. Yep. My cynical vitriol is not directed towards Rep. Paul, at least not in this case. I don't think this bill is going anywhere, but then again I never dreamed Obama would sign a bill with CCW in National Parks attached. If Paul can attach it to some major piece of legislation the Dems want –– maybe a compromise debt ceiling bill –– then anything's possible. No, my criticism here is directed towards the GOA, who once again use distortion and hyperbole to make gun owners think the GOA is out there protecting their rights, when in reality they're just trolling for donations. It would be nice to get rid of this law, but from what I understand NO ONE, not even a school shooter, has been charged in federal court using this law in the 15 years since it was passed. When one adds the protections for private property and CCW permittees and locked vehicles already in the law this is probably the least important gun law to target for repeal. Point taken, and well-said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 7:42:50 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: As for these "regulation" you speak of, remind me again of how many pages the Federal Registry decreased by under our last Republican president. It's true, the President did sign the spending bills that Ron Paul loaded with pork and regulations. For some reason, thought ends and venom begins to flow when Paul is discussed. At least, where some folk are concerned. Fine non-sequitur, by the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 7:46:09 AM EDT
[#42]
Facts show that gun free zones have less killings and CCW laws have resaulted in more killings.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 7:49:48 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
As for these "regulation" you speak of, remind me again of how many pages the Federal Registry decreased by under our last Republican president. It's true, the President did sign the spending bills that Ron Paul loaded with pork and regulations. For some reason, thought ends and venom begins to flow when Paul is discussed. For some reason, thought ends and emotion takes over, when Paul supporters hear anyone criticizing Ron Paul.
Criticism is not "venom". Labeling criticism as "venom" is a knee-jerk attempt to silence criticism. At least, where some folk are concerned. Fine non-sequitur, by the way. Hardly a "non-sequitur", given the context of the discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 7:51:48 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted: Quoted: As for these "regulation" you speak of, remind me again of how many pages the Federal Registry decreased by under our last Republican president. It's true, the President did sign the spending bills that Ron Paul loaded with pork and regulations. For some reason, thought ends and venom begins to flow when Paul is discussed. For some reason, thought ends and emotion takes over, when Paul supporters hear anyone criticizing Ron Paul. Criticism is not "venom". Labeling criticism as "venom" is a knee-jerk attempt to silence criticism. At least, where some folk are concerned. Fine non-sequitur, by the way. Hardly a "non-sequitur", given the context of the discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 7:59:14 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. He doesn't finish things...he just votes for it before he votes against it like the pork he crusades against...after making sure he has loaded up bills with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 8:00:44 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As for these "regulation" you speak of, remind me again of how many pages the Federal Registry decreased by under our last Republican president. It's true, the President did sign the spending bills that Ron Paul loaded with pork and regulations. For some reason, thought ends and venom begins to flow when Paul is discussed. For some reason, thought ends and emotion takes over, when Paul supporters hear anyone criticizing Ron Paul.
Criticism is not "venom". Labeling criticism as "venom" is a knee-jerk attempt to silence criticism. At least, where some folk are concerned. Fine non-sequitur, by the way. Hardly a "non-sequitur", given the context of the discussion. "Earmarks" do not result in unfettered grants given to districts. Earmarks bring Federally funded projects, mandates and requirements to the district. A TRUE conservative and a libertarian would know this. Being a Small Government advocate means that you don't ask to have your district's tax dollars fund a locally operated piece of the Big Government. A TRUE Small Government advocate recognizes that pitfall, and says no thanks. It's better to have your constituents' taxes fund the Big Government projects in someone else's district, than to invite the Big Government into your house. This is very a basic conservative/libertarian concept that most people should grasp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 8:06:34 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm impressed...... Ron Paul has my vote, for sure. He's the only candidate who practices what he preaches. His voting history aligns perfectly with what he says. He's also polling the best, out of any other republican, when put up against obummer... He has the best chance of winning the general because he's more popular amongst the so called swing vote. Really, I've never seen him get on TV and talk about all the pork he loves to load bills up with in fact I've seen him lambaste others for doing the same. How is that practicing what he preaches? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 8:06:56 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. Or maybe this will never happen because most members of Congress really don't believe in the 2nd amendment. They only pay it lip service every 4 years. Leave it to arfcom, however, to gripe about one of the few congressmen who does support the 2nd amendment. No maybe to it. It won't happen. Because Ron Paul never succeeds; he simply pays lip service to liberty, freedom, and fiscal responsibility, but the blame for his unbroken, continuous string of failures, always falls elsewhere. But Ron Paul does vote against every spending bill, even those he stuffs his own political pork into. What a guy. *looks at second line of America-first's signature* *looks at his join date and post count* lulz |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 8:20:50 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a crappy law, and it needs to be scrapped. Maybe Ron Paul will use his incredible leadership and charisma to rally others to his cause, building the momentum to push it through the Democrat led Senate. Or maybe this will never happen because most members of Congress really don't believe in the 2nd amendment. They only pay it lip service every 4 years. Leave it to arfcom, however, to gripe about one of the few congressmen who does support the 2nd amendment. No maybe to it. It won't happen. Because Ron Paul never succeeds; he simply pays lip service to liberty, freedom, and fiscal responsibility, but the blame for his unbroken, continuous string of failures, always falls elsewhere. But Ron Paul does vote against every spending bill, even those he stuffs his own political pork into. What a guy. *looks at second line of America-first's signature* *looks at his join date and post count* lulz That was a pathetic comment you made, typical of Ronulan intellectualism. The fact that you are apparantly obsessed with my sig line, post count, and join date notwithstanding; do you have any doubt that I was 100% correct in what I posted? Because if you actually believe that Ron Paul will find his first legislative success in the passage of the legislation in question, you are delusional. I will walk on Mars before that legislation is enacted into law. Because Ron Paul's legislative record is dismal, abysmal, rife with failure, 100% ineffective, and he's running out of time since he has announced his impending retirement from congress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2011 8:23:14 AM EDT
[#50]
In NM state law says that I cannot carry on school grounds even with my CHL. I can take a firearm onto school grounds on my "personal means of conveyance". Meaning, I can ride a bicycle onto the grounds and have my CCW on me as long as I don't get off of my bike.
Although the repeal of the federal law would not affect the state law, it is a step in the right direction and maybe it will help push state .gov to make the same choices. New Mexico has a conservative governor now. Next election there may be a GOP majority at the state level. It would be nice. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
