Ron Paul can kill grizzly bears with his bare hands.

Ron Paul can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Ron Paul can throw a baseball through a brick wall.

Ron Paul is not afraid of the dark.

From The Famous Article:
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
This reader plans to declare his opposition to the New World Order with his Ron Paul vote.

Two things to note.

As much as Cong. Paul's heart is in the right place on the 2nd Amendment, not one of the list of his bills has passed and been signed into law.

Two, should he by some miracle be elected, without the support of like minded members of Congress, he won't get anything done as President, except for many vetos (hey, that's not ALL bad).

While I like many of his views, his stance on the war makes him a non-starter in my book!

His view on the war is my beef as well.

As an executive, RonPaul would be an unrestrained disaster. He's a classic example of a person who knows history but doesn't understand it.

I love RonPaul in Congress. In fact, I'd love a couple dozen MORE RonPauls in congress. Thus, the good he can do would be maximized, and the chances of his doctrinaire naivete getting us all killed will be minimized.

Ron Paul states his foreign policy position as non-interventionist but a goodly number who have a beef would call it isolationist. The two are not the same. Further, the Constitutional power to declare war is reserved to the legislative branch and not the executive but the status quo of our military actions outside of our borders for the last half decade belies this. Is it too much to ask that the rulers follow the rules?

As far as inalienable individual rights to arms protected by the 2nd Amendment's prohibition of infringement of that right, the distinction should be simple. Any law that prohibits or infringes on possession is unconstitutional. Laws and regulation on what one does with the arm(s) in one's possession is acceptable.

--MuzzleBlast

Glad you're starting to see the problems with Fred. Paul is the closest thing to Thomas Jefferson we'll ever see.