Posted on 04/09/2003 4:05:06 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
That is disappointing.
This bill prevents and, in fact, nullifies existing lawsuits against gunmakers.
Indeed, I would think Paul would be in favor, since it prevents the assault against the financial assets of gun companies by bleeding them dry through legal defenses.
But, as in many of his votes, Paul comes out on the losing end.
I've lost all respect I ever had for Paul with his childish petulance about the war against Hussein.
I hope he feels like hell tonight.
I think he will only vote for removing one that shouldn't be there in the first place, or as you said in all other cases.
Get them gone!
Be out of my house!
The biggest objection to the war was the potential danger of a long-term occupation and nation building....not the war itself. Those warnings apply now more than ever. I am overjoyed that Iraqis are free of Saddam as a byproduct of a mistaken Wilsonian War....but the problem remains.
I will say immodestly that I (along with many anti-war conservatives) never believed the war would be a quagmire (the occupation is another matter). In fact, on FR, I over optimistically predicted on FR that the Iraqi regime would be overthrown in a coup on the first day of an attack.
Precisely; Mr. Paul's is a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment. I suspect he would say, 'If the Constitution needs to be amended in the pursuit of liberty, then amend it. Do not pass unconstitutional legislation or it dilutes respect for the Constitution in the construction of ALL legislation.' In that respect, he would be right.
Unfortunately, there really are places where one must draw a limit line on "keep and bear arms," because technology has so enormously changed what constitutes "arms." Assuming a logic of literal interpretation, Mr. Paul would consequently vote against laws limiting private ownership of nuclear weapons or weaponized smallpox and sinkspur would say that it was proof that he was crazy. Perhaps, but then he might also demand a Constitutional Amendment to articulate what should be the limits on private arms ownership.
If so, IMO, he would be right to do so. Technology has changed many things, and not all for the better. It is our challenge in the pursuit of liberty to ascertain the operant principles of self-defense, and an armed militia, necessary (AND SUFFICIENT) to insure a free people, and craft legislation that accurately articulates the key distinctions in light of those technical changes, a task so far beyond most legislators that it gives one pause to even hope for such a resolution.
He wants the federal government to limit itself to the duties and powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. Banning private lawsuits doesn't really fall within its authority. Personally, I'd regard the Second Amendment as having an enforceability provision as do later ones ["Congress shall have the authority to enforce this amendment through appropriate legislation."] but it isn't literally there.
How is not allowing lawsuits against gunmakers going to abridge the right own a gun? I fail to see the leap of logic you are making.
Besides, allowing lawsuits against gunmakers would open the door to suing Ford when you rear-end someone in an accident.
You can't abridge somebody else's freedom without abridging your own, bubba.
Sure I can. We take criminals off the street every day and it doesn't abridge my freedom in the least.
Holding the makers of an inaminate object responsible for the actions of a thinking human being is stupidity.
But, Ron Paul doesn't see it, and neither do you, which is why libertarians never win anything. Paul's opposition to the war might cost him his seat, especially if he runs against another solid conservative in a primary.
What a silly thing to say! How would the Iraqis have been free of Saddam without the war?
Should we have just nicely asked him to leave?
We will occupy however long it takes to bring a stable government to that nation. More important, however, the other nations supporting terrorists in the region are getting the message, loud and clear, that they had better clean house.
Ron Paul would have us sit back and take another hit from terrorists before he would do anything. Hell, he thought we ought to use letters of marque to root out the Taliban! The idiot didn't even want us to go after Osama bin Laden with the military!
What a foolish, foolish man! I hope he loses his seat over this.
Paul has the right IDEA 90% of the time, but I never cared for way of putting them into action. As some other freepers pointed out, since the 2nd amendment doesn't LITERALLY say "Congress SHALL have the power to ENFORCE this amendment through appriopiate legislation" like all later amendments state, Paul is going to insist that we don't have the power to write any laws to strengthen it. Of course, under Ron Paul's logic, Presidents Tyler, Fillmore, Andy Johnson, Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and LBJ were not "really" president since the constitution did not LITERALLY state "the Vice President SHALL become President if the President dies" until 1967. One need not act like an andriod to be a strict constructionist.
On the other hand, Shays is just a damn RINO. Now that the GOP has finally gotten the upper hand in liberal Conn., can't they find any REAL Republican to challenge this guy? The local "Republican" establishment will all try to sabatoge the campaign of any conservative, but so did Marge Roameka's supporters in NJ. In any case, real Republicans will not vote for Shays unless they HAVE to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.