Negative things about Paul

[Awesome Fellow]

This is the same message I posted on ronpaulforum.com. Maybe I'll get more responses here.

Let's start by saying that I'm not an American citizen and therefore cannot vote for anyone in your elections. Anyway, I've always been intrested in politics, and Paul has quickly become one of my favourite candidates. This thread was started in order to make it possible to share our views concerning Paul's weaknesses. To me there are two major issues:

1) Bringing troops home from Iraq. Mr. Paul opposed the war from the beginning so in a way I can understand this, but I believe, that decreasing the American military presence in the country right now would create a (even worse) playground for terrorists and increase the Iranian influence throughout the Middle-East.

2) Private gun ownership. I hate the whole idea of a nanny state, but after all as a European I'm pretty used to strict gun control and believe that giving firearms to civilians causes more harm than good - that's why this exception. Just take a look at countries like Canada and Japan that are much safer than the United States. Japan, for example, had three dead in total from all the 53 shootings they had last year.

Despite these Paul is my number one so far. As a small private investor I would really like to see a balanced American budget before I die, help ease tensions in the Middle-East (oil!), give people more (especially financial) freedoms through tax cuts and minimize the role of the government.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

1. He doesn't believe in a weak military, he believes in a strong defense.

2. It's in the US constitution.

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

The founders didn't include Gun Ownership so people could use them to hunt. The purpose was so the people could have some form of defense against the state if or when that time comes.

 

[kylejack]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Restrictions on the 2nd amendment would just be another step toward centralization of power and denial of liberties. Retricting access to guns means the criminals will get them anyways through illegal means, and the innocent will have no way to defend themselves. It also means the state can subdue the people without any retaliation.

 

[Billsfan]

We need our troops out of Iraq ASAP. This is what the majority of the American people want. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't in Iraq right now. We pulled out of Vietnam and they ended up just fine.

2. Just try to take our guns away from law abiding citizens. Only criminals will have them. If you haven't noticed the only people who use guns in a bad way are the criminals. Law abiding citizens use them as protection and for sport. Not a good argument there mr/mrs european. If you don't like our laws maybe it's time for you to go home. Sorry for being mean but...we take the gun debate seriously here.

 

[findmemonkey]

Swiss they are armed to teeth, every family has machine gun in their home, just in case french want to start trouble lol
But if you look at their statistics on gun crime its low.
Gun violence in United States in related to decaying culture, low education etc.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The states need more rights, Bush is the result of when the Federal government is too strong!

 

[Sir VotesALot]

but I believe, that decreasing the American military presence in the country right now would create a (even worse) playground for terrorists and increase the Iranian influence throughout the Middle-East.

You may not be American but you sure have access to our media channels.

 

[cujothekitten]

I used to be anti-gun until Bush got elected. Nothing scares me more than the inability to defend myself against my own government.

Now let's say I'm completely unrealistic and our government leaves me alone for the rest of my life, the fact of the matter is that some day our government will betray us. It's history and every great nation falls. Now when I say I'm pro-gun it's not just for my own protection but the protection of the future generations. I wouldn’t want to be a part of disarming my great grandchildren in case they need the weapons to ward off a corrupt system.

 

[Awesome Fellow]

1. He doesn't believe in a weak military, he believes in a strong defense.

But if you create a problem (such as the chaos in Iraq) aren't you supposed to to something about it? We can indeed argue whether the war was justified or not, but shouldn't the US have some kind of (moral) responsibility to help correct things? Iraqi government seems way too weak to me.

2. It's in the US constitution.

Yes, but the constitution is more than 200 years old, written when the world was totally different. Why can't the US rewrite parts of its constitution the same way many other countries have done? Being old and written by a bunch of important people doesn't mean that it cannot be improved.

 

[kylejack]

But if you create a problem (such as the chaos in Iraq) aren't you supposed to to something about it? We can indeed argue whether the war was justified or not, but shouldn't the US have some kind of (moral) responsibility to help correct things? Iraqi government seems way too weak to me.


Yes, but the constitution is more than 200 years old, written when the world was totally different. Why can't the US rewrite parts of its constitution the same way many other countries have done? Being old and written by a bunch of important people doesn't mean that it cannot be improved.

Britain has succumbed to CCTV everywhere and men in vans going around scanning for unauthorized televisions. Gun ownership in America means that will hopefully never happen.

 

[Suzu]

I used to be anti-gun until Bush got elected. Nothing scares me more than the inability to defend myself against my own government.

Now let's say I'm completely unrealistic and our government leaves me alone for the rest of my life, the fact of the matter is that some day our government will betray us. It's history and every great nation falls. Now when I say I'm pro-gun it's not just for my own protection but the protection of the future generations. I wouldn’t want to be a part of disarming my great grandchildren in case they need the weapons to ward off a corrupt system.

You might like the little video I made called Kucinich Wants to Gut 2nd Amendment. I plugged RP in it a couple of times, and in the description I put links to RP stuff.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Yes, but the constitution is more than 200 years old, written when the world was totally different. Why can't the US rewrite parts of its constitution the same way many other countries have done? Being old and written by a bunch of important people doesn't mean that it cannot be improved.

But see, the constitution is changed through amendments - and thats the whole point of the gun debate here. If there was widespread popular support for restricting gun ownership, then an amendment would be ratified and put into law somewhere down the line. But there isnt that support - people don't WANT to give up their firearms. In this way, the constitution is alive today just as it was 200 years ago.

 

[JoshLowry]

Yes, but the constitution is more than 200 years old, written when the world was totally different. Why can't the US rewrite parts of its constitution the same way many other countries have done? Being old and written by a bunch of important people doesn't mean that it cannot be improved.

Have you heard of the amendments? :o

The founding fathers realized that it would need change over time and put into place a way to amend the constitution when the people deem it necessary.

 

[kylejack]

Also please note that the President plays no part in the amendment process.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ever since Bush came to power.... yes, we need to be armed. People need a taste of personal responsibility. If you ban all guns in a society, will there be no guns? No, there will. Only the gangs would have them!

 

[Awesome Fellow]

Ever since Bush came to power.... yes, we need to be armed. People need a taste of personal responsibility. If you ban all guns in a society, will there be no guns? No, there will. Only the gangs would have them!

Then why do countries with strict gun control have less gun violence? Is it just all about the culture? I doubt that.

Note, that gun control does not mean total ban on firearms.

 

[kylejack]

Then why do countries with strict gun control have less gun violence? Is it just all about the culture? I doubt that.

Note, that gun control does not mean total ban on firearms.

It is largely culture. Japan is a mostly homogenous society. Here in America we have all different races, religions, and socio-economic statuses.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Then why do countries with strict gun control have less gun violence? Is it just all about the culture? I doubt that.

Note, that gun control does not mean total ban on firearms.

I think it has alot to do with the culture...