Comments on: Dude, WTF?

By: beerslurpy

beerslurpy — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 19:19:54 +0000

The NRA isn’t against repeals, it is just more patient than Ron Paul. It also recognizes that there is a lot of work remaining. Would equal rights for blacks have been possible in 1940s Alabama? Even thought the entire northeast wouldnt have hesitated to pass civil rights laws, it still wasnt possible. A lot of things had to change over the next 30+ years to make it possible.

The societal attitude towards firearms is very healthy in the South and the Midwest, but there is still way too much anti-gun sentiment in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. I agree with the NRA that it we will need a multi-decade effort to continue squeezing the antis and passing pro-gun laws around the country. Only after we have laid that groundwork and begun changing attitudes can we begin safely repealing the national level laws. We dont want to make the same sort of mistake that the antis did in 94.

By: Phelps

Phelps — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:13:36 +0000

Matt, if Congress did that, I would consider it an assault on the judiciary by trying to clog the works and upset the checks and balances. I would seriously consider a few 2nd Amendment Recalls of congressmen of it got much worse than it already is.

By: Standard Mischief

Standard Mischief — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:15:59 +0000

Well shit Matt, let's skip all that "oath of office" crap. It's just obsolete window dressing anyway.

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 06:30:50 +0000

Matt, that is, without a doubt, one of the dumbest statements I have ever read.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:11:48 +0000

It’s not Ron Paul’s job to consider the constitutionality of bills before voting for them.

In the American system, the legislature is allowed to make any insanely unconstitutional law it wants (presuming it has the support of the people), before getting bitch slapped, or not, as it may be, by the supreme court.

By: Publicola

Publicola — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:36:38 +0000

excuse me, but can anyone point to any gun control law the NRA has stated it wants repealed? Any hints of an actual strategy to repeal anything? anything at all?

The NRA is happy witht he current laws. They don’t want anymore (which is a good thing) but they’re not talking, let alone attempting to repeal anything.

So it’s not that Paul is screwing up their game plan. he’s just showing everyone else what being pro-gun really means & it makes them look dim in comparison.

So the NRA doesn’t like him for being too pro-gun, just as the republicans don’t care for him for being too small government (I speak of the party, not necessarily its members).

But another question – can anyone point to an incrementalist approach at getting rid of any gun laws that Paul has opposed?

By: beerslurpy

beerslurpy — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:30:12 +0000

Ron Paul’s heart is in the right place, but his head is up his ass.

Repealing everything at once isnt going to work but incrementalist approaches probably will. Ron Paul works against the successful methods for getting rid of gun control and only proposes methods that are self-defeating. So I can see why the NRA is going against him- they are tired of his silly unproductive behavior.

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 02:10:04 +0000

David, you are still a beacon of reason in an unreasonable season.

By: David Codrea

David Codrea — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:50:12 +0000

The answer to that, DirtCrashr, is to increase the number of Constitutionalists in congress, not eliminate them.

By: DirtCrashr

DirtCrashr — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:46:05 +0000

I appreciate his efforts but how effective has he been with all of the bills he’s introduced to repeal federal firearms laws, have any gone to Committee? I think the NRA is trying to get people it can work with, first to limit the scope of further enroachment and then to begin the repeal process – if that’s even possible given the number of Anti-gunners and Democrats willing to torpedo any and all pro-Gun legislation they can.

By: The Freeholder

The Freeholder — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:36:01 +0000

I’ve seen the same here. Local pol gets an NRA 4 star rating, Gun Owners of NC gives him a 1 star. That’s why I even though I’m a member, I don’t pay too much attention to the NRA’s voting recommendations.

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:22:27 +0000

As far as I know Paul is the only legislator that has introduced bills to repeal all federal firearms laws. You can’t get more pro 2nd than that. However, just think of the kink it would put in LaPierre’s fund raising hysteria letters if Paul were successful, not to mention his dudgeon at not being courted by politicians because the problem was fixed.

By: Bitter

Bitter — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:14:28 +0000

Sebastian’s got it right. I don’t have all his votes, but he did vote against lawsuit protection, and based on his general philosophy, I imagine he’s cast anti-votes in the past. Not because he’s anti-gun though.

To be honest, I’m sure his B is simply a recognition of his support for the idea rather than his votes. I doubt many votes have come up that would have his support at the federal level and, depending on how many votes he’s cast, probably should have a lower grade if using a strict formula. I’m sure the fact they are sitting out of the race is because they don’t want to be against him even though he hasn’t stood up for their legislation because of other principles that most gun owners would generally agree with.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:30:14 +0000

Ron Paul will vote against the NRA on things like national concealed carry, the protection in lawful commerce in arms act, and some others, on the grounds that the federal government has no power under the constitution to do so. I agree, the B rating is kind of ridiculous, but I can also see the NRA’s point of view.

Nonetheless, I applaud Paul’s commitment to federalism.