IndyGunner
Master
- Dec 27, 2010
- 1,977
- 36
Spoken like a true patriot. The way you can tell he is the real deal is even when his ideas do not seem popular he still does not change his stance, and his stance has been the same for decades, unwavering.
I agree with that! Spot on.Are those people imprisoned there? Can they not choose to vacate places where their natural rights are disallowed under those documents with the color of local law? As I understand it, Dr. Paul does not love gun control, he simply does not think it is a matter for the fedgov to address. I hasten to add that my understanding might very well be incorrect, however.
All of that said, if he does not like NJ or CA...... CAN YOU BLAME HIM???
Blessings,
Bill
What is he wrong on?
You have got to be kidding. LOL
Ron Paul says he wants a smaller government. I suppose he doesnt realize what his actions will do to the country. He says he wants to get rid of many government agencies including the DOE, DHS, IRS, FEMA, DHHS, and the federal reserve.. What is he thinking? These are horrible ideas. The DOE oversees the US energy, inspections, research ect. The DHS keeps us safe. FEMA responds to disasters. The federal reserve is a very important body of the government. Doesnt he realize that by abolishing this he will destroy the country?
Kirk, I see the points you're making. The issue as I see it is not that RP would support this or that, it's that as a federal level officeholder, he doesn't view it as his job to enforce state-level laws, any more than it's Mitch Daniels' job to enforce Lafayette's smoking ban. There is no preemption for those types of laws, so for him to do so would be akin to "micro-managing". Personally, I do think that the states should look at the Constitution as the "floor". They may allow more, but not less than that document. I can wrap my head around federal-level (or Constitutional-level) enforcement that tells them, "You will comply with the agreement into which you entered." (in this case, "...shall not be infringed.") The unspoken "or else" portion of that demand is that the state will no longer be considered a part of our country; no highway funds, no federal offices, no medicare to the citizens, and the state folks have to come up with some way of keeping everyone happy... Obviously, these are only off-the-cuff examples of consequences.
There are no two ways about it: For this country to get back on track, back to the Founders' intent, we have some tough times ahead. Frankly, when the aid gets cut off and people have to learn to subsist on their own, without government nannying and sheltering, and when people are actually able to do so... those years are going to suck badly. There will be riots. There will be lawlessness. There will be disease. There may even be war(s). This time period is going to be very bleak, and there is no certainty that we'll ever get back to self-sufficiency. If we do, however, I think it will be worth it.
Lastly, again, I see where you're going. I do think it's the height of irony to accuse Dr. Paul of not respecting the Constitution, however. Or were you referring to our last several Presidents and the current occupant of the office?
Blessings,
Bill
This seems pretty spot on.
Ron Paul A Distaster For The USA. Hes Always Wrong. Why Is There So Much Love For Him ? Wrong Paul , page 1
And this is good
FactCheck.org : Wrong Paul
Tony