Dr. Ron Paul E-Mail Blasts Mitt Romney on Gun Control, Abortion
At just about the same time former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney formally declared his candidacy for president, Dr. Ron Paul´s 2012 election team sent out an e-mail detailing what it sees as Romney´s faults.
The e-mail begins with Romney´s record on health care, but also cites several position statements taken from Romney´s 2002 gubernatorial campaign website, particularly his statements on gun control and abortion.
Dr. Paul´s election team takes issue in the e-mail with Romney´s support of "the strict enforcement of gun laws" and support of the federal assault weapons ban, as well as his pledge not to change the "pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts."
Ron is uber right-wing, ain´t he? He loves arming street gangs and Mexican drug lords with American guns? He is also against women´s health and freedom?
Anything bad you ever hear about Dr. Ron Paul is spread by an elaborate conspiracy of One World Government Promoters, Communists, Je-- I mean, Bankers, The Media Elite, Were-rats and The Illuminati, all of whom Fear Liberty and Hate Freedom.
"On Abortion Rights: As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government´s."
----------------------
Dr. Paul wants to end the war on drugs (aka federal drug prohibition); which is what helps fund these gangs in the first place.
The war on drugs doesn´t eradicate demand, it just creates a black market for drugs. This market demand is then filled by the gangs (just as it was with gangsters like Al Capone with alcohol prohibition in the 30s).
The black market created by federal prohibition funds these criminal gangsters, instead of funding law-abiding businesses (which create jobs).
It not only reduces the amount of jobs in this country by giving the jobs to gangsters, it also saps us taxpayers of our hard earned money.
When you have a prison system, which the majority of prisoners are from drug related crimes, you´re spending a gigantic amount of your own tax money to imprison them.
When you instead let law-abiding businesses handle drugs like alcohol you:
- Create jobs - Can regulate those drugs - Reduce prison size - Increase the amount of police officers able to investigate real crimes like murder - Reduce taxes for taxpayers - Financially cripple the gangs
----------------------------------------
Gun laws bar law abiding citizens from weapons; not criminals. The criminals are going to break the law anyway.
So with these weapon bans you disarm the law-abiding citizen and give the criminal more power (because the criminal wasn´t going to follow the weapons ban in the first place).
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
- Thomas Jefferson (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
This was also shown not too long ago when a town right outside of Atlanta, Georgia passed a law which said each household must have a gun. After the law was passed, the crime rate plummeted.
25 Years Murder-Free in ´Gun Town USA´ Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents http://www.wnd.com/...
" Ron is uber right-wing, ain´t he? He loves arming street gangs and Mexican drug lords with American guns? He is also against women´s health and freedom? "
ROFL, as if street gangs and mexican drug lords get their guns by legal means, and as if gun control laws could possibly prevent criminals from getting them...it just stops the regular folks without underworld connections.
but go ahead and try and twist his words as you please.
just know that your logic is flawed and dangerous in more than a few ways.
Mexican drug lords DO get their guns by legal means. They just buy them from American gun dealer stores and American gun shows in Western states. It is a known fact.
Dr. Paul´s e-mail was critical of Romney´s pledge not to change the "pro-choice status quo." Which part of that is difficult to understand?
According to the source article, Dr. Paul´s spokesman "Mr. Howard goes on to say that Mr. Romney´s campaign website from his 2002 gubernatorial run highlights his questionable stances on gun control and abortion."
Then it has the stance you quoted verbatim, which I believe I accurately summarized as "his pledge not to change the "pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts.""
At least when HE says something you know it´s what he believes in and will stand by. Romney will say whatever you want to hear. Cain won´t event do THAT, he´ll just tell you he knows how to solve a problem and that only being President allows someone the magical access to information needed to make decisions.
Dr. Paul thinks that killing an unborn child is murder. He also doesn´t like prostitution or drugs. He also says as president he would control none of that.
What he´s for is states rights to decide on abortion, prostitution, and drugs. He believes that, regardless of his personal beliefs, the voters of their own state should vote on the issues. He would have the President and Federal Government get out of these issues entirely and let the people decide.
Dr. Paul is for the right for the people to decide.
Dr. Paul thinks that killing an unborn child is murder. He also doesn´t like prostitution or drugs. He also says as president he would control none of that.
What he´s for is states rights to decide on abortion, prostitution, and drugs. He believes that, regardless of his personal beliefs, the voters of their own state should vote on the issues. He would have the President and Federal Government get out of these issues entirely and let the people decide.
Dr. Paul is for the right for the people to decide.
Is not a vote for democrat or republican, or really even left or right. It is instead a vote to do something that maybe Caesar should have, to create more independent states. Very dangerous however to have that many people sharing power in this day and age i would say, there are so many crazy governors.
That´s like saying a vote for the US Founders wouldn´t be a vote for the left or right. Dr. Paul is much like a US founding father running for president; as his views are nearly identical to the views of the US founders.
Did i just hear lurker say something about drug cartels and gangs buying guns from a gun shop? OMFG, what movie has he been watching, that isn´t how it happens at all. THIS is how it happens. They break into a house when no one is around, find a nice cache of guns, then they distribute those firearms that were illegally obtained throughout the cartel/group that they are in. When it´s time to get more guns, they repeat the same thing. I can´t seriously believe that you made a logical assertation in thinking that a man that is part of a gang, with 2-3 felonies on his record could possibly walk into a gun shop and get a gun. The second they ran his SSN# through the ATF system, they would flag it and say, no sir, sorry you cannot obtain a firearm because you have felonies on your name.
Silly to think that anyone could just walk into a gun store, and pick up a firearm, infact i think the only country on earth that works like that is Switzerland. Yes, lurker, switzerland is as armed as we (USA) are, and have very liberal laws for guns, more or less sign your name on a sheet of paper, and off you go, with new gun in hand.
Dr. Paul introduced legislation in February 2005 that would have defined human life as beginning at conception -- at the federal level -- which would obviously make all abortion murder, and remove the ability of any state government to preserve abortion rights.
So if "Dr. Paul is for the right for the people to decide" on abortion, why did he try to take that decision out of our hands through federal legislation?
I think he did quite well. You are the one who can´t comprehend. You have the same impediment that CArnold has. Facts don´t penetrate. Also, you are Canadian. Why do you give a crap about Ron Paul?
So you didn´t read what I wrote carefully. All you have to do is read the bill:
"(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State." http://thomas.loc.gov/...
That means if a state doesn´t agree, then they don´t have to prosecute. It´s much like all the other bills he proposes with states rights (states rights which come directly from voters).
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction
"I’m surprised that I don’t have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn." http://www.ontheissues.org/...
I´m not really wanting to jump into the abortion discussion but saying that "each State has the authority to protect (the) lives of unborn children" is not the same thing as saying that "each State has the authority to uphold a woman´s right to choose"
If the people of a state doesn´t want abortion to be legal, then they can choose that. If the people of a state do want abortion to be legal, then they can choose that.
A woman finding herself in a state which has rules she doesn´t like can then go to a different state which has the rules she likes. Unfortunately the baby has no choice in the matter in abortion. I can see how some people think it´s murder whether they´re in a crib or in a womb.
Semantics indeed. If Paul had simply wished to relinquish recognition of a civil right to the states, he didn´t have to include the very first sentence of the bill:
"To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."
Such a law would establish at the federal level the "humanity" of a fertilized egg cell and could logically be used to prove that abortion is murder, as its opponents claim.
This was not a bill about states´ rights; it was a bill to make abortion legal. That it didn´t simply say "abortion is illegal" just proves that Paul is a politician.
@QA: If you´re going to call it murder at a federal level and murder is illegal...everywhere... then giving the states authority simply means that abortion isn´t a federal crime and the states have no choice but to prosecute or declare murder as legal.
QUOTE:Mexican drug lords DO get their guns by legal means. They just buy them from American gun dealer stores and American gun shows in Western states. It is a known fact.
Really?? Can you back that with facts? .. By all means it is not a known fact anywhere I can find.
Quote: (example) Almost every study of waiting periods has found them to be worthless. An anti-gun scholar, Duke University´s Philip Cook, explains that criminals do not buy guns through normal channels, but instead "find ways of circumventing the screening system entirely." http://www.cato.org/...
If these drug lord bought legal guns they could be traced back to them. It is hard to kill someone with a registered gun I would think.
