• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ron Paul vs. the NRA?

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,907
Location
Colorado Springs, CO (formerly El Paso, TX)
Headline: "Ron Paul rips NRA plan for officers in every school"
Published December 24, 2012
FoxNews.com
-- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-every-school/?test=latestnews#ixzz2G5e7xb00


...did not see this posted yet (which I thought strange, with all the Libertarians here and specifically Ron Paul supporters) so I thought I'd get THEIR comments re: this story.

So...is Ron right?


P.S. Mods: Move this to the proper area if this is not it...wasn't sure where this topic should go.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,833
Location
Granite State of Mind
So...is Ron right?

Yes.

I was saying so before I ever heard his comments.

The answer is not "more police", it's more ordinary citizens who are no longer banned from carrying. The answer is definitely not a national mental health database, which is the far scarier and more dangerous part of the NRA's proposal.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I started a thread that said the call for armed guards was lame. It is like they were trying to avoid advocating the correct and obvious solution: Stop fettering the right of LAC to carry in schools. Yes, precautions need to be taken to ensure that the children, whom we can safely assume are almost all ignorant of the safe and proper use of firearms, do not gain access to them and that any teachers, as agents of the State, are properly trained before they are allowed to carry, but carry should generally be permitted, even encouraged, in schools.

It is only the relative defenselessness of schools that attracts these evil crazies to shoot them up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Keylock

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
196
Location
OKC
Yes, Mr. Paul is correct. I mentioned it somewhere, but where is enumerated power in the Constitution for the fed.gov to steal more of our property each payday to implement a program that only grows the fed.gov...
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
I've not read the report.

But the answer is not the federal government, unless the problem involves interstate or foreign affairs. PERIOD.

My guess is that Ron Paul agrees.
 

Keylock

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
196
Location
OKC
Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are willing to allow the government to grow simply because they hold the belief that whatever SCOTUS says... is final.

The NRA's idea is for the fed.gov to act beyond it's enumerated power as found in that inconvenient rule book entitled, "The Constitution of the United States".

To most Americans, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all things (even above the Creator). Most Americans are ignorant of Article VI, second paragraph that reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The key words above are: "made in Pursuance thereof"... meaning that all laws made by Congress can only be made in accordance and support of those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Any law made beyond an enumerated power and made in pursuance thereof... are null and void.

Since most Americans are educated in government operated public schools, they have little or no idea of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which addressed the unlawfulness of the Alien & Sedition Act. And though most of the other states did support the Alien and Sedition Act and discounted nullification, ironically less than ten years later they used nullification to push back against the Embargo Act of 1807, claiming it to be null and void. Wisconsin nullified the Fugitive Slave Act later, claiming it to be unconstitutional. The RealID Act has effectively been nullified. Many states are nullifying the NDAA, Obamacare and a host of other unconstitutional laws.

On nullification, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A nullification is the rightful remedy whenever the government violates the Constitution."

In Federalist #78 states: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid..."

James Madison says in the Virginia Resolution: "The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

The violation occurs when the .gov oversteps it's enumerated powers. Gun control is a complete violation of those enumerated powers. Neither the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper clause (and all of it's 'elasticity') give such broad powers to the fed.gov and only pertain to laws passed in accordance with enumerated powers. Naturally defendants of the CC & NP are unwilling to discuss the Ratifying Debates of the several states to ascertain the actual meaning and intent of both and instead rely on the ignorance of the people to stretch things to it's benefit and growth.

Much of all the problems in the US boils down to an ignorant populace and people with good intentions who have zero concept of natural rights. Sadly, 99% of gun owners are ignorant of natural law, the rights granted by virtue of our humanity and are incapable of philosophical thought. Most gun owners also have no understanding of what the legitimate purpose of government (in and of itself an unnecessary concept) might be. If it has a purpose, that purpose is to defend the right to life, liberty and property.

The NRA and those who support it may have good intentions. But their answer simply defies the enumerated power of Article 1, Section 8. Essentially, because the NRA is ignorant of how their solution violates the Constitution, they are as much an enemy of the Constitution as the anti-gun crowd. They can correct their anti-constitutional stance by advocating that the states address the issue and tell the fed.gov to pound sand.
 

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are willing to allow the government to grow simply because they hold the belief that whatever SCOTUS says... is final.

The NRA's idea is for the fed.gov to act beyond it's enumerated power as found in that inconvenient rule book entitled, "The Constitution of the United States".

To most Americans, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all things (even above the Creator). Most Americans are ignorant of Article VI, second paragraph that reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The key words above are: "made in Pursuance thereof"... meaning that all laws made by Congress can only be made in accordance and support of those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Any law made beyond an enumerated power and made in pursuance thereof... are null and void.

Since most Americans are educated in government operated public schools, they have little or no idea of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which addressed the unlawfulness of the Alien & Sedition Act. And though most of the other states did support the Alien and Sedition Act and discounted nullification, ironically less than ten years later they used nullification to push back against the Embargo Act of 1807, claiming it to be null and void. Wisconsin nullified the Fugitive Slave Act later, claiming it to be unconstitutional. The RealID Act has effectively been nullified. Many states are nullifying the NDAA, Obamacare and a host of other unconstitutional laws.

On nullification, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A nullification is the rightful remedy whenever the government violates the Constitution."

In Federalist #78 states: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid..."

James Madison says in the Virginia Resolution: "The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

The violation occurs when the .gov oversteps it's enumerated powers. Gun control is a complete violation of those enumerated powers. Neither the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper clause (and all of it's 'elasticity') give such broad powers to the fed.gov and only pertain to laws passed in accordance with enumerated powers. Naturally defendants of the CC & NP are unwilling to discuss the Ratifying Debates of the several states to ascertain the actual meaning and intent of both and instead rely on the ignorance of the people to stretch things to it's benefit and growth.

Much of all the problems in the US boils down to an ignorant populace and people with good intentions who have zero concept of natural rights. Sadly, 99% of gun owners are ignorant of natural law, the rights granted by virtue of our humanity and are incapable of philosophical thought. Most gun owners also have no understanding of what the legitimate purpose of government (in and of itself an unnecessary concept) might be. If it has a purpose, that purpose is to defend the right to life, liberty and property.

The NRA and those who support it may have good intentions. But their answer simply defies the enumerated power of Article 1, Section 8. Essentially, because the NRA is ignorant of how their solution violates the Constitution, they are as much an enemy of the Constitution as the anti-gun crowd. They can correct their anti-constitutional stance by advocating that the states address the issue and tell the fed.gov to pound sand.

So true! Congress is limited to only doing those things that Art 1 Section 8 permits, yet I find many people do not understand the 18th Clause of Section 8.

Let's look at it. You can follow along at: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Far too many people focus on the necessary and proper portion of that statement and ignore the simple fact Congress must justify Necessary & Proper for the foregoing powers. If the laws they are creating are not contained within the foregoing powers, or are not listed elsewhere in the constitution, then those laws are Anti-Constitutional. (Anti-Constitutional is my term for anything unconstitutional that has not made it before the SCOTUS for declaration, or through nullification by the several sovereign states, as such.)

I see where in Clause 10 that Congress has the ability to define and punish felony acts committed on the high seas, and acts committed against other countries. Can someone show me where they have the authority to create, define, and punish Felony charges within the United States that are not committed on the high seas or against the laws of other countries.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

It seems that those in our Government have overreached their authority and failed to abide by the 10A yet again.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
I've not read the report.

But the answer is not the federal government, unless the problem involves interstate or foreign affairs. PERIOD.

My guess is that Ron Paul agrees.






Or Tranquility...I swear I reade some document that referred to Domestic Tranquility, somewhere.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,613
Location
I80, USA
Man, if my school had armed police officers, I'd probably be a criminal right now.

I had a lot of problems with the last school I went to before being homeschooled. I was even assaulted by the damned principal! :cuss:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I have no problem with schools having armed guards. Each community must assess the security needs of each school based on its unique set of circumstances. However, unlike the NRA, I don't see armed guards as the solution. The solution is simple: allow lawful carry by faculty and staff--and possibly some parents. Require specialized training to ensure that the carriers know how to deploy the firearms in ways that do not endanger the scads of children around and that they know how to keep little bugger-hooks from even touching the things, cuz they surely ain't trained!
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,520
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are willing to allow the government to grow simply because they hold the belief that whatever SCOTUS says... is final.

The NRA's idea is for the fed.gov to act beyond it's enumerated power as found in that inconvenient rule book entitled, "The Constitution of the United States".

To most Americans, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all things (even above the Creator). Most Americans are ignorant of Article VI, second paragraph that reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The key words above are: "made in Pursuance thereof"... meaning that all laws made by Congress can only be made in accordance and support of those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Any law made beyond an enumerated power and made in pursuance thereof... are null and void.

Since most Americans are educated in government operated public schools, they have little or no idea of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which addressed the unlawfulness of the Alien & Sedition Act. And though most of the other states did support the Alien and Sedition Act and discounted nullification, ironically less than ten years later they used nullification to push back against the Embargo Act of 1807, claiming it to be null and void. Wisconsin nullified the Fugitive Slave Act later, claiming it to be unconstitutional. The RealID Act has effectively been nullified. Many states are nullifying the NDAA, Obamacare and a host of other unconstitutional laws.

On nullification, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A nullification is the rightful remedy whenever the government violates the Constitution."

In Federalist #78 states: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid..."

James Madison says in the Virginia Resolution: "The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

The violation occurs when the .gov oversteps it's enumerated powers. Gun control is a complete violation of those enumerated powers. Neither the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper clause (and all of it's 'elasticity') give such broad powers to the fed.gov and only pertain to laws passed in accordance with enumerated powers. Naturally defendants of the CC & NP are unwilling to discuss the Ratifying Debates of the several states to ascertain the actual meaning and intent of both and instead rely on the ignorance of the people to stretch things to it's benefit and growth.

Much of all the problems in the US boils down to an ignorant populace and people with good intentions who have zero concept of natural rights. Sadly, 99% of gun owners are ignorant of natural law, the rights granted by virtue of our humanity and are incapable of philosophical thought. Most gun owners also have no understanding of what the legitimate purpose of government (in and of itself an unnecessary concept) might be. If it has a purpose, that purpose is to defend the right to life, liberty and property.

The NRA and those who support it may have good intentions. But their answer simply defies the enumerated power of Article 1, Section 8. Essentially, because the NRA is ignorant of how their solution violates the Constitution, they are as much an enemy of the Constitution as the anti-gun crowd. They can correct their anti-constitutional stance by advocating that the states address the issue and tell the fed.gov to pound sand.

It is very refreshing to find that someone on this site gets it. Every statement in the above post is right on.

Ron Paul is evidently ahead of his time........or is he behind his time (1787)?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
When someone raises the question in a court as to the constitutionality of a law, it is appropriate for the court to answer that question. Of all the federal courts, the one that has the final say among those federal courts is the SCOTUS. It is reasonable that the other two branches of government should bind themselves individually to findings of constitutionality by the SCOTUS. However, if those two branches disagree together with the Court (which they almost never do), they can effectively ignore the Court with the sole consequence that prosecution for violating a law declared unconstitutional would be grossly impractical (which is good). They also have the option to rewrite laws, which seems to be the preferable way of dealing with such a unified disagreement with the SCOTUS.

States also have the ability to ignore the SCOTUS if there is unity within the branches of State government and sufficient resolve to marshall the State's resources to implement its holding on the constitutionality of a law.

Is the Supreme Court acting within the natural scope of courts in ruling laws unconstitutional? Yes. Courts exist to resolve disputes arising out of the law, and constitutionality can be disputed.

Is the Supreme Court the only way to challenge the constitutionality of a law? No. States should be able to use their authority to enforce that which they believe is constitutional and not to enforce that which they believe is not constitutional. Of course, again, this will require resolve and unity within that State government.

Is the Supreme Court the most practical way to resolve the constitutionality question? Of course it is.

Is the Supreme Court the FINAL word on constitutionality? No. Again, though, it requires resolve to go against it. That resolve almost universally does not exist.

So don't let folks fool you into thinking that the SCOTUS is acting outside its scope when deciding constitutionality. Neither let anyone say that they are the only ones who can make such a decision or act on it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP But the answer is not the federal government, unless the problem involves interstate or foreign affairs.

Oh, Congress would never regulate interstate or foreign affairs. If they did, they'd have to stay with their wives in their home state.

:)
 

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
snipped ~~
So don't let folks fool you into thinking that the SCOTUS is acting outside its scope when deciding constitutionality. Neither let anyone say that they are the only ones who can make such a decision or act on it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

There are also times that the decision handed down, did not contain full knowledge by the SCOTUS and could open their findings for a future review and possibly the SCOTUS overturning their own prior finding.

I cannot quote an example case off the top of my head from the SCOTUS, but have seen a similiar re-review of their own decision and ultimate overturning of their own decision, in the Washington State SC.

One case that I can think of that our SCOTUS was not given complete knowledge forehand and ruled in a manner that could be overturned is United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

They were not informed that when it came to shot-guns with barrels less than 18", that our Armed Forces had in fact used such in WWI, and their finding even states that they had no knowledge.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Heller and MacDonald were such overturnings. They overturned the concept fundamental to other decisions that the 2A Right belonged to the militia and not to the Individual.

The SCOTUS can be (and has been) wrong. It can correct itself, however, despite being horribly, horribly wrong sometimes, it doesn't always.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 
Top