Ron Paul Issues Statement on ATF Gun Scandal

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by MattCollins, Jun 21, 2011.

  1. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    10,220
    Location:
    North Florida
    +1
  2. rentalguy1

    rentalguy1 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    884
    Location:
    The mountains of NE TN.
    Where?


    Way to regurgitate democratic talking points! You've just shown yourself to be in complete ignorance of the facts. He does not want to "legalize" heroin. He wants to end the "war on drugs," so we can stop throwing money at a problem that we don't have a prayer of winning. He wants the STATES to take the lead on this matter, as it should be, instead of the federal government.

    For all you other ignorance spewers, tell me exactly what conspiracy theory Dr. Paul believes in. You damn well better research it, too! I'm sick of you people that have no actual knowledge of this guy simply spouting off what you hear on the TV and the radio. Look it up and read the FACTS, people!!!
  3. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    10,220
    Location:
    North Florida
    I dont think that is his problem. And I really cant put my finger on it either. It has to do with the truth being told. I like much of what he says. I just doubt he will have the majority behind him. If he did, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. As far as this next election goes, I would vote in a dog to get bozo out.
  4. Caneman

    Caneman Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,454
    GOP debate: Ron Paul makes case for heroin legalization
    May 06, 2011|By Luke Broadwater

    At the first GOP debate tonight in Greenville, S.C., Republican presidential candidate and U.S. Congressman Ron Paul made the case for legalizing drugs, even heroin.

    In an exchange with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Paul made the point that people should have the freedom to do things to themselves that might seem crazy to others.

    "You have a right to do things that are very controversial," Paul said.

    "Are you sugggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?" Wallace countered.

    At this, Paul turned his attention to the audience, which loudly cheered most comments he made, despite orders from the moderators not to do so.

    "How many people here would use heroin if it were legal?" Paul asked. "I bet nobody would."

    Then Paul invoked a voice of sarcasm.

    "Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me," he said. "I don't want to use heroin, so I need these laws."

    At that, the crowd burst into applause.

    Even Wallace had to laugh.

    "Who thought heroin would get applause here in South Carolina?" he said.

    **********************************************************

    When Dr. Paul said "you have a right to do things that are very controversial" this was his response to the question "When asked by Chris Wallce why South Carolinia social conservative should vote for him if he favored the legalization of prostitution, gay marriage, marijuana, and even heroin"

    Heroin is one of the most addictive and evil drugs used today... if people use heroin now when it is illegal then it is logical to assume that they will continue to use it if it is made legal, not only that many more will as well... the fact that a licensed medical doctor such as Ron Paul supports using heroin as an "exercise of 1st ammendment rights" indicates to me that the man is not capable of consistently making sound decisions if he was POTUS.
  5. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,125
    Well, you are correct here. The Constitution doesn't say it. I meant to say the US Declaration of Independence.

    "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights of man.

    The government is supposed to act in the best interest of its citizens right?

    This could also be used to defend universal health care, but the problem there is that you violate personal property rights by forcing people to pay for such a system.

    My point is that people have a right to have access to this stuff (marijuana) because of its medical properties. Allowing people to have it in certain amounts would not mean that mass dealing and grow operations would be legal. It just means that if someone wants to smoke a little weed, they can. There's people who have survived cancer and chemo by smoking the stuff. I think smoking weed is stupid. I would never do it unless my life depended on it, but as I've said many times I'm not going to tell people what to do. I don't have that right.

    I think most people support the idea that the government should butt out of peoples' lives. Shown by people applauding to Paul's comments in South Carolina. Of course you have the far left wing people like those in California who would rather have the government take care of them and impose their lifestyle on everyone else. Which is why they were proposing that idiotic law about circumcision. Or why you can't buy a Coke from a vending machine in the city of San Francisco.

    Idk. Live and let live is the way to do it.

    As for life being a right... Well they all talk about how that means socialized health care and how it should be paid for by everyone and provided to everyone... No. RIGHTS mean that the government can't deprive you of it. It doesn't mean provided to you. The Second Amendment is my right but I don't see the US government handing out M16s to anybody except the Mexican drug cartels.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2011
  6. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,125
    The reason Paul never gets elected is because people have the idea that voting for him makes them 'nuts,' or 'far right wing nuts.'

    They buy into this idea that one man can't make a difference, but that's simply not true. One man CAN make a difference. Jesus Christ was one man wasn't he?

    I'm not saying Paul is Christ, but Paul is the perfect opportunity for the American people to take back the United States from these totalitarian types that run it right now.

    The Democrats do it and so do the Republicans. USA PATRIOT Act comes to mind.

    I just want a leader who is honest for once rather than helping out all their buddies that handed them money, or sidestepping the law for what they think is the 'greater good.'
  7. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,312
    Location:
    Indiana
    Evil? How can an inanimate object be evil? Is it the same way that "assault weapons" are evil and ought to be banned? Is it the same way that "high capacity magazines" are evil and ought to be banned?

    Is it wise to use heroin? Nope. Should people choose to do so? Nope. Should we punish them for what they choose to do to themselves? No way. But drugs are the leading cause of crime in the United States today. We wouldn't have robberies if people weren't trying to get drugs. We wouldn't have robberies if people weren't allowed to own anything, either. Doesn't make it a good option.
    Punish crimes that cause damage to people and people's belongings; don't criminalize liberty.
  8. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    Right on CJ.

    The nanny state has no right in my life if I'm doing no harm to anyone else. It's like seatbelt/helmet laws. How does not using one or the other affect anyone else?

    Legalizing drugs would have many benefits. But that's not what the government wants to hear.
  9. al45lc

    al45lc New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,124
    Location:
    colorful colorado
    The electability of ANY Presidential candidate is very much due to their own work, past records and speeches make or break them.
    How they are perceived by the "mainstream" and swing voters is key, Ron Paul simply hasn't done well in this area.
    His appeal to a group as small as this one has very little to do with it.
  10. al45lc

    al45lc New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,124
    Location:
    colorful colorado
    Remember the "The Shadow" ? He knew where evil lay. :)
  11. Hatch

    Hatch Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    287
    I agree with you, but I think there are other obstacles

    The Libertarian party is unjustly discriminated against in many states where the R&D have conspired to prevent any other candidates from being allowed on the ballot in National elections

    The Libertarian party has to run RP as a Republican because they know they have ZERO traction as Libertarians. Sure, getting the word out is one thing, but there's a difference in dealing in reality and self deception. I dont like it anymore than any of you do, but it's no different than Perot or Nader votes. If we were to massively reform our entire electorate and actually turn it into 1 man (person now): 1 vote then we could get rid of some of those hurdles, but even today we'd still be looking down the double barrel shotgun of a President who can legalize 20 million democrats with the stroke of a pen.

    The Libertarians also present themselves as Independent and have ideals that are both right and left facing, but their planks make to many of either side choke, so they either stay home or they vote their original party line.

    Examples:
    Drugs - should pot be legal? IMO, yes, stop wasting time money and resources on knuckleheads that hang out at the mall and want to smoke a joint.

    Should that extend to coke? ehhhh... maybe. yeah, people with addictive personalities will be ruled by this drug, but it is their choice to use it at their peril, are they any more likely to commit a traffic homicide because they are on coke than whiskey? I dont think any of the history of arrests support that (which is also why most jurisdictions no longer prosecute DWI and now choose DUI) it's a big legal distinction between Intoxicated and Impaired (Impaired being = "under the influence")

    Should that extend to man made drugs like Meth, PCP, LSD? Uhhhhh how about not only NO, but HELL NO. Those arent random things someone will stumble across on their trek across God's green earth and decide to sample, those are some of the nastiest things we've ever made, and those individual lives are destroyed faster than any pot smoking or beer drinking slacker could ever hope to achieve.

    Foreign entanglements... these ideals were framed when it took months if not weeks to move people from one country to another in order to make war or hostilities. Now we can bring Global Thermonuclear War to all corners of the globe in less than 28 minutes. Yeah... I think we need to rethink the hands off, they are on their own xenophobic Libertarian policy.

    Lest we forget, that without the French, who we immediately stabbed in the back, we wouldn't have this country of our own sovereign from British rule.

    Libertarians have a lot going for them (us) but they need to prove it to everyone else in big ways, at the very basic levels first. And that has more to do with knocking on doors and talking to neighbors than it does with donating to a national campaign that will walk away with at best perhaps 1-2 dozen electorate votes in a Presidential general.

    Just my opinion.
    -Hatch.
  12. rentalguy1

    rentalguy1 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    884
    Location:
    The mountains of NE TN.
    I'm sorry, but if you are taking this as Dr. Paul singling out heroin for legalization, then you need to work on your contextual skills. You, like many others, hear this one snippet, and take it as the Gospel. All of us have a DUTY to go back and read each candidates actual words, and look at their actions over a span of time to garner the context of that person's words.

    Ron Paul is not necessarily for the legalization of drugs, and neither is the Libertarian Party, for that matter. Both are for taking the matter out of federal hands and putting back in the hands of the states, where it belongs. He wants to end the "War on Drugs" which has always been a abysmal failure, and drains our coffers of hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

    I get it that you are against heroin. Your posts read as if you have had family or friends that have wrecked their life with this drug. I get that, because I have family and friends that have let pot and booze wreck their lives. None of the laws out there helped any of them. In fact, they may have pushed some towards drugs that may not have had any interest if they were as legal as cigarettes.

    The only reason that Dr. Paul is labeled as a quack is because that's what the talking heads in the media and the higher ups in both parties have fed you. And you ate it right up. They do the same thing with Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Herman Cain, and many others. The thing about Paul is he does not have the air time to get the truth out like the others I mentioned. He must be doing something right, though. The people in his district, and all over Texas, love the man.

    I beg you to please go read some of what the man has actually said, in context, and look up some of what he has done in his career. He likely isn't very far from the line of thought of anyone on this board when the facts are learned. He's really for all the same things that we are. He just has the stones to say so in a public forum, and then the media hacks up his words to make it sound like he's from Mars.
  13. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,720
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    The war on drugs has not succeeded just as prohibition didn't succeed; and the fact is that alcohol has caused the deaths of far more people than drugs, yes even heroin and cocaine. To be in favor of laws banning drugs without being in favor of laws banning alcoholic beverages is nothing less than hypocrisy.

    However that isn't the main issue. I believe it is the fundamental right of every individual to ingest whatever he chooses. It's called freedom. God has given every human being free will to make choices in their lives, even if they are bad ones. I'm in no way advocating the use of drugs, but what others choose to consume is none of my business, nor anyone Else's. Their illegal conduct as a result of drug use is.

    As rentalguy has pointed out, the "war on drugs" has cost us enormous sums of money, to pay for law enforcement, prosecution, and the incarceration of tens of thousands of relatively harmless individuals. That crimes of violence are committed to enable the acquisition, distribution, and use of these drugs has more to do with their prohibition than it does with the direct effects of the drugs themselves.

    The mob has long played a major role in promoting the drug industry, along with the cartels, and terrorist groups. These thugs know how to promote it and make it highly profitable. By their very existence they multiply the incidence of drug use over what would naturally occur if such substances were not outlawed.

    Think about it. How long would these vermin stay in business if they made no profit? Most drugs are easily and cheaply made but due to their illegality the cost to the user is a hundredfold. That makes many addicts desperate people. Desperate people take desperate measures to obtain the things they crave. The muggings and murders of innocent citizens is the result of this war on drugs.

    If we instead used our resources to pay for the manufacture of these drugs and made them available at low cost to addicts and habitual users we could put a lot of thugs out of business. This would also take the users out of the shadows and make them more accessible for education and treatment, and make them far less likely to commit violent crimes.

    That is the key. Laws prevent very few from using drugs. Those who want them will obtain and use them. The individual must make the choice to be rehabilitated. Forcing it on them accomplishes nothing. You see in the end it still comes down to choice, whether or not government acknowledges the right to choose.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Rand Paul Keeps Sending Me Petitions To Sign Feb 6, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Rand Paul and others may filibuster Reid's gun control legeslation Mar 29, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Rand Paul Filibustering the Drone Stike CIA Dir Nominee Mar 6, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Paul Howe speaks on 2nd Amendment, etc. Feb 6, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Reply to my letter to Senator Rand Paul Jan 29, 2013