Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/10/2003 9:44:29 AM EDT
This type of dissent against our president will do nothing but elect a democrat in 2004. He MUST be voted out and replaced with someone who is LOYAL this great democracy and unquestionably supportive of the republican party. Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution by Rep. Ron Paul, MD The Bush administration recently surprised and angered many pro-gun conservatives by announcing its support for an assault weapons ban passed in 1994. The law contained a ten-year sunset provision, and is set to expire in 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law." Perhaps this should have surprised no one. President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue. In fact, many attribute Gore's loss to his lack of support among gun owners. The events of September 11th also dealt a serious blow to the gun control movement, as millions of Americans realized they could not rely on government to protect them against terrorism. Gun sales have predictably increased. Given this trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration�s position may well cost votes in 2004. The mistaken political premise is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, so-called "assault weapons" are different and must be controlled. The administration clearly believes that moderate voters from both parties support the ban. "Who could possibly need such weapons?" is the standard question posed by gun control advocates. Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified "assault rifles" outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer. More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying "That could never happen here, this is America" – but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now. Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation: "Suppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?" April 22, 2003 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 9:50:08 AM EDT
nice try [:)] Ron Paul, Libertarian for PREZ!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 10:06:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2003 10:07:44 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 11:26:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cnatra: nice try [:)] Ron Paul, Libertarian for PREZ!!!!!!!!!
View Quote
I voted for him for president in 1988, my first presidential election. Haven't had many good choices since.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 11:39:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: Instead of asking why is this man still in office, one should ask "Why did this man, the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1984, leave the Libertarian Party and become a REPUBLICAN?" Can't have it both ways. If the Repubs are no different than the Dems, then Paul is a traitor and a fraud for leaving the Libertarian party and becoming a Repub (=Dem). On the other hand, if there IS a difference between the Repubs and the Dems, one would expect Paul to choose the party which most nearly reflected his personal Libertarian views. And which Party did he choose? The Repubs, of course. A bio of Ron Paul:[url]http://www.free-nefl.net/rpbio.htm[/url]
View Quote
Now now raf, don't go confusing him with horrible details like facts and logic...
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 1:07:50 PM EDT
[i]Why is this man allowed to stay in office?[/i] A better question: Why is this man allowed to post?z
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 1:47:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: [i]Why is this man allowed to stay in office?[/i] A better question: Why is this man allowed to post?z
View Quote
Hmmm - That's nicely facist of you. I guess that's called 'compassionate facism'.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 3:55:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By zoom: [i]Why is this man allowed to stay in office?[/i] A better question: Why is this man allowed to post?z
View Quote
Hmmm - That's nicely facist of you. I guess that's called 'compassionate facism'.
View Quote
Whereas your style would be better deemed "dispassionate ignorance?"
Link Posted: 5/11/2003 6:12:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By zoom: [i]Why is this man allowed to stay in office?[/i] A better question: Why is this man allowed to post?z
View Quote
Hmmm - That's nicely facist of you. I guess that's called 'compassionate facism'.
View Quote
Whereas your style would be better deemed "dispassionate ignorance?"
View Quote
You da man Rik! [bounce]
Link Posted: 5/11/2003 8:44:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By zoom: [i]Why is this man allowed to stay in office?[/i] A better question: Why is this man allowed to post?z
View Quote
Hmmm - That's nicely facist of you. I guess that's called 'compassionate facism'.
View Quote
Whereas your style would be better deemed "dispassionate ignorance?"
View Quote
You da man Rik! [bounce]
View Quote
Its a shame you're still around. We've benefitted nothing by your presence.
Link Posted: 5/11/2003 9:14:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By zoom: [i]Why is this man allowed to stay in office?[/i] A better question: Why is this man allowed to post?z
View Quote
Hmmm - That's nicely facist of you. I guess that's called 'compassionate facism'.
View Quote
That's nicely moronic of you. I guess that' s called "complete igorance by a complete moron", as you have proven in every post you have made on this board. It's too bad there is not an IQ test to be a member of this board. You would fail it miserably, as all your posts are just rehashes of the drivel from DU.
Link Posted: 5/11/2003 9:51:09 AM EDT
[:)]
Top Top