Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Came across this entry written by a college student that really inpressed me. It is in response to a similar article from the opposing view. If you ever had any questions on major issues or the thought process behind his stances its a pretty good breakdown.

http://www.blazingtruth.com/vote-ron-paul/

opposite veiw

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/20 ... -ron-paul/

I've become very intrigued by the guy, its interesting he can court the support of hardcore conservatives and flower power hippies.

He wears his faith on his sleeve, which is one of the things about his platform that bugs me.

Before you all jump all over me, keep in mind that if *I* ran for president, I am sure the right wing movement in the USA would ask me if I was going to be a "dirty papist like JFK" and kowtow to the pope, or be a "dirty shintoist" and kowtow to the emperor. Of course, I'd do neither...

Hmmm... me for President, 2016.

Just wondering why you think he wears his faith on his sleeve especially if you just read the article or have researched him at all. Or how you can say that would be a detriment compared to the other contenders and their ridiculously showy pandering on the right wing side of things. Rick Perry state prayer meeting come to mind? In fact when asked about his faith he said that it is a personal thing that has no weight over his stances. He is pro life but he says its up to the sates to dictate their own laws not the federal government. Not jumping your bones just curious as to how you came to your point of view.

Kreutz wrote:I've become very intrigued by the guy, its interesting he can court the support of hardcore conservatives and flower power hippies.

Ya... Paul followers have been accused by Mike Huckabee as being "a mix of gun show and Grateful Dead". Get yur tie-dye camo.

Mindflayer wrote:He wears his faith on his sleeve, which is one of the things about his platform that bugs me.

Really? I've never heard him take the evangelical perspective and push his brand of morality on people. I've only ever heard him mention the bible maybe once or twice and that was because his audience was in that direction to begin with. He likes to quote the Book of Samuel in those situations. He is a Christian, but what denomination is a matter of dispute. Supposedly he was baptized in a Presbyterian church, married in an Episcopalian Church and attends a Baptist church. I don't think he really cares. I think he is just Christian.

pnkmdfnky wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcUFRtBn8U

Already been there man!! You're really on it! It's good to run into an ally on the forum.

ThereIsNoSpoon wrote:

pnkmdfnky wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcUFRtBn8U

Already been there man!! You're really on it! It's good to run into an ally on the forum.

Hell yeah man gotta get the word out to freedom lovers

Dude-- I like Ron Paul. If he can get the nomination he has got my vote. I am afraid though that getting the elephants nod is a long shot.

mamabearCali wrote: I am afraid though that getting the elephants nod is a long shot.

Do you control the elephant or does it control you?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but that kinda is the point. Paul is where he is because his supporters (the people) have put him there, not the party. The people accepting what the party gives them is how we got where we are... no matter what party it is. That is just my opinion.

If you can, watch the republican debates tomorrow night. There should be some fireworks between Paul and Perry.

Mindflayer wrote:He wears his faith on his sleeve, which is one of the things about his platform that bugs me.

Every other Republican candidate must drive you up the wall then!

Diomed wrote:

Mindflayer wrote:He wears his faith on his sleeve, which is one of the things about his platform that bugs me.

Every other Republican candidate must drive you up the wall then!

ThereIsNoSpoon wrote:

mamabearCali wrote: I am afraid though that getting the elephants nod is a long shot.

Do you control the elephant or does it control you?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but that kinda is the point. Paul is where he is because his supporters (the people) have put him there, not the party. The people accepting what the party gives them is how we got where we are... no matter what party it is. That is just my opinion.

If you can, watch the republican debates tomorrow night. There should be some fireworks between Paul and Perry.

I try to be practical. Perry and even Romney are not perfect but they are a sight better than Obummer--though I gag every time I think of Romney. Even Ron Paul is not perfect but he is very good. I am one person and I live in VA--not a state that usually makes a difference in the primaries-- However, when it comes to primaries I vote my heart and so if Paul is still there come VA primary time there is a good chance I will vote for him. Last time I voted for Huckabee even though I knew he had no chance and McCain had it in the bag.

However--When it comes to presidential elections I look for the candidate that is viable and will do the least amount of damage and the most amount of good for the country as a whole--sometimes I am wrong. Sometimes a president that I vote for does something monumentally stupid (patriot act for example). Usually that means voting for the elephant. I don't put my national election vote with someone who has no chance of winning because that just elects the worst option possible.

Hi there, David here -- author of BlazingTruth's "Top 10 Reasons for Voting for Ron Paul"

I haven't read the thread for sake of my time, but I wanted to thank you for featuring my post.

Considering this is a Gun Owners Forum, and I do not have a gun (as was mentioned, I'm still a college student), I do not have much to contribute in way of gun specifics; however I can contribute intellectually by clarifying Ron Paul's stances. Here's two main points:

1) Ron Paul is strongly in favor of the 2nd Amendment, perhaps more so than any other candidate. Ideally, Ron Paul is a voluntarist, and it would be up to the discretion of weapons dealers to sell guns to individuals. The popular response is often along the lines of: "OMG crazy thugs running around with AK47's in the streets!?" -- this is extremely false on the grounds that gun dealers are under immense societal and business pressure to not sell guns to those who do not meet specific objective criteria. For instance, it would not be a good business practice to sell guns to children either, so businesses would naturally develop rational standards (business-specific only) regarding the sale of guns. Further, these contractual agreements would be documented and most-likely available to employers as public record.

2) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a Republican. As such, he is primarily opposed to the initiation of force on the grounds of the non-aggression principle. Those who carried guns, however powerful, would still not be allowed to actually shoot people (duh). This would probably entail a harsher sentencing for those who shoot people, although I'm not certain. Guns are meant to be kept by the individuals, not by bureaucracy. It is a means of defense and protection of our civil liberties. Government has a monopoly of retaliatory force under objective control.

I'll get off my soap-box now. Thank you very much for linking to my article.

Dave

You can LIKE anyone, but winning an election in this country?

You have to be bland milquetoasty, and without flavor, faults, or foibles.

And that's a shame.

Kreutz wrote:I've become very intrigued by the guy, its interesting he can court the support of hardcore conservatives and flower power hippies.

+1

A policy of liberty can do that and it's a strong argument for his ability to defeat Obama. It's 180 degrees of the current administration.

mamabearCali wrote:

ThereIsNoSpoon wrote:

mamabearCali wrote: I am afraid though that getting the elephants nod is a long shot.

Do you control the elephant or does it control you?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but that kinda is the point. Paul is where he is because his supporters (the people) have put him there, not the party. The people accepting what the party gives them is how we got where we are... no matter what party it is. That is just my opinion.

If you can, watch the republican debates tomorrow night. There should be some fireworks between Paul and Perry.

I try to be practical. Perry and even Romney are not perfect but they are a sight better than Obummer--though I gag every time I think of Romney. Even Ron Paul is not perfect but he is very good. I am one person and I live in VA--not a state that usually makes a difference in the primaries-- However, when it comes to primaries I vote my heart and so if Paul is still there come VA primary time there is a good chance I will vote for him. Last time I voted for Huckabee even though I knew he had no chance and McCain had it in the bag.

However--When it comes to presidential elections I look for the candidate that is viable and will do the least amount of damage and the most amount of good for the country as a whole--sometimes I am wrong. Sometimes a president that I vote for does something monumentally stupid (patriot act for example). Usually that means voting for the elephant. I don't put my national election vote with someone who has no chance of winning because that just elects the worst option possible.

I disagree there. Perry and Romney are Obama lite. Look at their records and you will see how they would govern. It's one thing to say it, it's another to do it and the fact is neither has bothered to do much of anything pro-liberty during their governorships. Bachman appears to be trying, but is very new to the scene. That is in contrast to Paul. He's repeatedly sponsored pro-liberty bills and has been consistent.

We've reached a point that Obama-lite or minimising damage simply won't do. The debt is out of control and it will take major changes to save the country. It's like a cancer patient who has 6 months to live and treatment X might forestall that an additional month, but they are still going to die unless radical action is taken now. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has the experience and record IMHO which is capable of that action. 4 or 8 years of Obama-lite doesn't make much difference.

This is opposition piece:

Article wrote:8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.

How can any self-respecting gun owner not love that? What has Perry or Romney actually done for gun rights in their states? Basically nothing...they don't even try, but they sure do talk a big game when your donations are at stake.

How can any self-respecting gun owner not love that? What has Perry or Romney actually done for gun rights in their states? Basically nothing...they don't even try, but they sure do talk a big game when your donations are at stake.[/quote]
how true I am just stationed here but im originally from texas we may love our guns but we cant even open carry unless its unloaded and to get your cc you have to do a range test. now dont get me wrong its not horrible but again any limits on gun owners is a detriment to our society where guns are not meant for game or sport but for the protecting of ourselves and our families living in a free society and the number one enemy to that is a government with no checks.

Ya' know, until this posting I was dead set on Perry. Now seeing a fellow gun lover who apparently has an intellect to go with it, I might be raising an eyebrow to hear more from and about Ron Paul. Personally, I think every law abiding citizen ought to be able to walk around with fully automatic "whatever" and mags that hold as many rounds as possible. Why? Because like I said, "law abiding citizens". Period. I'll bet ya' that crime would be diminished by a ton. Car jack me, I don't think so..... Strong arm attempt at an ATM, yeah right. Random gang violence in the streets, not on a law abiding citizen. Yeah, I like where this could go.