Ron Paul wants to change the right to bear arms

  Yeah, he said it.  It was on FOXnews.  I will paraphrase his remarks becase I was so astounded by his argument that I couldn’t write at the time.  It always strikes me funny when people take the argument most used against what they believe, and then recite it to defend their view.

   Ron got a lot of face time today, and in the overall I thought handled himself quite nicely.  the only place I saw a significant breakdown in his arguments for his views was on gun control.  He said, and again this is a paraphrase…the people who wrote the constitution I’m sure did not envision not being able to carry their shotguns across state lines.

   No kidding?  You think some guy in Georgia didn’t realize that he would end up facing different gun laws if he went into South Carolina?  Fair enough.  I’ll buy that

Do you think the people who wrote the constitution took into account some guy driving in an automobile from Florida to Maine in a day, with a trunkload of guns to sell?

Do you think these old musket carrying rapscallions considered the idea of a machine gun that fires several thousand rounds a minute, or an automatic handgun with a 15 round clip?

   I’m sure they took into account driveby shoootings, since I’m sure drivebys was a problem at the time, and I’m also almost certain they took into account teeneagers carrying guns to school and wiping out their classmates…again, a huge problem in the 1700’s.

   You made the gun control argument for us Ron.  The founding fathers never realized what would happen in the future.  This isn’t cause to make it easier to get a gun, but rather a reason to make it harder.  I fully suport the peoples right to own weapons, and I fully support the practical reasoning behind making purchasing a gun a difficult process.

     Just to give a little insight, I do not own a gun, because at least 5 times a day if I owned one I would use it as it was intended.

8 Responses to Ron Paul wants to change the right to bear arms

  1. jessecuster says:

    The founding fathers may not have envisioned machine guns and such … but they did mean full and damn well for private citizens to be at least as well armed as the military.


    Thomas Jefferson summed it up best:

    “When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny.”

  2. armed is fine by me. Psychotic and armed is a bit much though.

    I’m al for the right to bear arms. I’m also for a stringent background check. Trust me, you don’t want guns for sale at 7/11

  3. jessecuster says:

    Oh, I’m all for background checks, absolutely. You shouldn’t be able to get one without getting your background checked.

    However, I want to be able to have just as much, and just as good, as the government. Also, I don’t want the government to know what I’ve got via registrations, etc.

  4. yeah…that would be fine by me…if you can carry a pistol legally I don’t care if you have a TOW2 in the basement.

  5. jessecuster says:

    Now -that’s- what I call a good plan. 🙂

  6. U was able to fire the original TOW while i was in…talk about a kick ass weapon

  7. Adrian says:

    Thomas Jefferson may have made that inspiring quote, but if you look at the current times, you could give everyone in the U.S. an M-16, and the government still has F-16s, M-1s and ICBMs to create tyranny with. That argument is no longer applicable towards gun rights. The government could put us in shackles and chains at any given moment, and we wouldn’t have a prayer. We can only hope that they don’t. And guns in the hands of every citizen aren’t going to deter them any less than no guns.

    And guerrilla tactics wouldn’t work either. Americans are not cowards. They wouldn’t use women and children as human shields.

  8. timjowers says:

    Good issue. You have to remember that murder was swiftly punished in those times. Heck, one might even be hung for stealing a horse. Those were more practical times when individual liberties also meant individual responsibilities. No welfare. No free healthcare. If you wanted to protect yourself from marauding Indians, Spaniards, or others, then you needed a gun. Ask anyone from an inner city slum in which the police and mailmen do not go what they think about having a gun. Ask the Jews or the non-Muslim Sudanese. Oh you cannot, they were murdered. The Right to Bear Arms is one of those liberties which is self protecting. It is like having the nuclear bomb in the 1980’s before a Ph.D. in Physics was available to people of all countries.

    Arguing that criminals commit crimes does not support the argument that guns should be controlled. If it did, then you must also assert cars should be limited to 5MPH since they kill far more people than guns. Criminals will always have weapons. That’s just plain common sense. Criminals don’t obey laws. Laws are made to control law-abiding people and only to convict criminals AFTER the fast.

    The problem with gun control is it is a solution looking for a problem. The problem with murder with guns is the punishment is not swift nor fair. Studies have shown swift and fair and even public punishment are effective deterrents to crime.

    Of course we think gun registration is an OK idea. In a few decades, even more individual freedom will be lost and that will seem OK too. National ID cards. Required vaccines. You name it. Socialism is but a step along the path to Communism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: