Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« A ... slight correction | Main | Free NRA membership for troops »

Ron Paul and gun rights

Posted by David Hardy · 13 October 2007 06:47 PM

Reader Mechanic recommends Noel Gibeson's blogpost on Ron Paul and gun rights.

UPDATE: dwlawson, of Chicago Handgun Rights comments, in a comment blocked by the spam filter:

I'm having a hard time staying with Fred. He needs to get it in gear and get out there. I really like RP as well and he's battling like he means it. I've contributed to both, but not sure how my vote will go in the primary yet.

If Rudy or Mitt gets the primary nod, I doubt I will vote for them. If we can't elect a real pro-rights candidate we deserve Hillary.

· Politics

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | October 13, 2007 7:12 PM | Reply

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.

The Mechanic | October 13, 2007 10:08 PM | Reply

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.

RKV | October 14, 2007 5:39 AM | Reply

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).

Alan A. | October 14, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply

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

Rob | October 14, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply

His view on the war is my beef as well.

geekWithA.45 | October 14, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply

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.

MuzzleBlast | October 15, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply

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

nick | October 17, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply

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

Leave a comment