Guns & Patriots

The Ron Paul gun rights record

Rep. Ronald E. “Ron” Paul (R.-Texas) wants to be President of the United States.  Good idea? No. Sure, there is the slight chance Paul could beat anti Second Amendment Obama in a one-on-one match if he were to be so lucky to win the GOP nomination, BUT would Paul make a good president? No. Even on gun rights? Again, that’s a No. 
Fans of Ron Paul for President are at best enthusiastic and at worst a bombastic group of thugs. The real fanatics parade around Facebook and other social networking sites like bullies in a schoolyard searching for the weakest kid. They name call and personally attack those who disagree that Paul is a worthy contender. And, they erroneously conclude that the only candidate for the Republican nomination, who is a real Republican, is Ron Paul.
By prompting Paul on a pedestal as the “liberty” “constitutional” “anti-government” hero they envision, they believe they can convince GOP primary voters that voting for any other candidate, except Paul, is the same as voting for a Republican In Name Only, who mirrors the same socialist tendencies as the Democrats.  Yet, despite Paul’s colorful rhetoric, there is no legislative record to show he deserves to sit on such a throne.
Here are the short answers as to why I do not like Ron Paul for President:
1. He spent a total of 23 years in Congress and has nothing notable to show for it;
2. No offense to Seniors, but Dr. Paul will be 77 years old on August 20;
3. He is a two time loser for GOP nomination for President, this is his third attempt;
4. Isolationism in a worldwide economy is a recipe for disaster;
5. No one likes war, but worldwide terrorism is REAL and not America’s fault, and
6. It is not American-like to turn our backs on our international allies and friends, such as Israel.
Moving along to gun rights: Yes, Ron Paul is a thoughtful advocate for the Second Amendment. Yes, he has a congressional voting record that fits along the lines of the way we would vote. And, yes, Paul makes a perfectly good argument as to why the Second Amendment deserves protection. BUT, there is no indication in the legislative record of a proactive, in your face, Second Amendment stalwart. 
With respect to Paul’s record on gun rights, here is what OnTheIssues reports: 
• Fact Check: Terroristic shootings do occur with guns around. (August 2011)
• Gun-free zones don’t make any difference. (April 2011)
• Require video recording of every firearm test by ATF. (January 2011)
• Liberty Candidate: no point in keeping guns you can’t access. (September 2010)
• Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (September 2007)
• Opposes the DC Gun Ban; it’s not just a “collective right”. (March 2007)
• Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (October 2005)
• Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (April 2003)
• Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (December 2003)
• Sponsored bill against United Nations taxation on firearms. (September 2003)
• Support the Second Amendment. (December 2000)
• Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (June 1999)
• Individual right to self-defense at home and as self-defense. (January 1999)
• Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (March 2007)
• Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (November 1996)
• Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (November 1996)

That’s all well and good, but with all due respect to the good Doctor, 23 years serving as a representative of the People in Congress is way too long a time to accomplish, next to nothing. In fact, Paul’s own actions, or inaction, show a politician with good intentions, yet no real results. 
That’s the making of a do-nothing President.  No, thanks!

Sign Up
  • Guest

    I reviewed some of the comments here. It seems that the author has taken the time to engage in self pity, yet does not have the time to respond to any rebuttals of her position. Is she looking for sympathy after writing an offensive hit piece on someone who could be her grandfather?

    Oh boo-hoo Ron Paul supporters are so mean!  Instead of crying about critical and sometimes inappropriate Internet comments, why not address the substance of the debate? From where I sit it is plain to see that you have no rebuttal, so you must resort to this self pity routine. 

    When another comment speaks of your young age, you are quick to rebuke him. Why not show some maturity and class instead? These attributes speak for themselves. If you understood these values, you would not find yourself reassuring your audience  with statements like this:  “I’m not a neophyte, I’ve been involved a while.”

    When you find yourself  reassuring others in this way, it may be an appropriate time for self reflection. What are the reasons that would make people feel that your are young, naive, and unqualified? What can you do to address these perceptions? Is it possible that the actions required to address those concerns could make you a better author? 

    You called Ron Paul too old, comments claimed that you are too young. You did not like it when people claimed you were too young. Do you like ageist discrimination? Are the people claiming you are too young, claiming so because of your numeric age or because of  your perceived age based on your immature rhetoric? If you do not like ageist discrimination, perhaps you should not use it in your articles; But then again, you might be inclined to laugh at the golden rule. 

    I do not judge you, but you should ask yourself some of these questions and decide for yourself.