{Video} Ron Paul Get A Very Important Message About Guns In 1989

To be honest I think the analogies he gave were very on point!

It's crazy how for song long this has been an issue when even for so much longer it was never an issue.
What changed?



The first couple of analogies are very good analogies to discuss.
But I think many people will say "ya but the difference is death vs. no death".

But death isn't proprietary to guns, it can happen with a bottle, a rope and even a pillow.
Should Govt. ban pillows?

Edit for words of wisdom: "If we sacrifice our liberty for safety we will lose both our liberties and our safety"

"If we sacrifice our liberty for safety we will lose both our liberties and our safety"

If we arm everyone, we lose both.
If we take guns away, we are both more free and more safe.

Only a paranoid demented old man would think otherwise.

reply to post by DaTroof

If we take guns away, we are both more free and more safe.

History proves that you are wrong...........

reply to post by seeker1963


Oh really? How's the UK roundup going? How many internment camps have they placed UK citizens in?

As I said, paranoia. No one's out to get you. But with guns around, EVERYONE is out to get you.

Originally posted by DaTroof

"If we sacrifice our liberty for safety we will lose both our liberties and our safety"

If we arm everyone, we lose both.
If we take guns away, we are both more free and more safe.

Only a paranoid demented old man would think otherwise.

I thought that the motto of this site was "Deny Ignorance" yet here you are embracing it. Anyone that has even a loose understanding of history knows that you are wrong.

reply to post by SpaDe_


What history? Hitler? Yeah, I don't think our President is Hitler. Maybe you do.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

What history? Hitler? Yeah, I don't think our President is Hitler. Maybe you do.

If all you can come up with is Hitler, I was 100% correct in my original statement.

reply to post by DaTroof


If the government cared about Americans safety they would round up the violent gangs. They know who they are, they have their own TV show. They are attacking the Second Amendment for other reasons than Americans safety. Criminals,politicians,and the wealthy will keep their guns long after the citizens are disarmed. When they take every gun from everybody, America will possibly go along. They will never do that though.

reply to post by DaTroof
Do you honestly believe that having no guns = more freedom & safety? LMAO. As long as our governments have weapons, we will too and that will never change unless they give up control of the planet so quit with your nonsense.

almost half a million people die of tobacco related diseases every year in america, less than 12,000 people die from gun related deaths, so why don`t i see a mad rush to regulate or ban tobacco? tobacco isn`t a right and kills a lot more people than guns do, unless this really isn`t about saving lives?

reply to post by DaTroof


www.wnd.com...

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
Ads by Google

Gold & Silver IRAProtect From a Falling U.S. Dollar. Request a No-Cost Information Guide BirchGold.com/Gold-Silver-IRA
Man Cheats Credit Score1 simple trick & my credit score jumped 217 pts. Banks hate this! www.thecreditsolutionprogram.com

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

Not what some predicted.
Fascinating.

reply to post by Tardacus


Tobacco harms the user, guns harm someone else, and are therefore unconstitutional.

Originally posted by DaTroof
If we arm everyone, we lose both.
If we take guns away, we are both more free and more safe.

Only a paranoid demented old man would think otherwise.

Firstly you are not arming everyone.
Secondly do you know about gun control in Switzerland?
They do not have an army, they rely on the people to be it's national militia, that's their national defense.
And it is for this reason that Hitler never invaded Switzerland, did you know that?

Read the book Target Switzerland for more information.

And how do you take someone's freedom away and consider them more free?
Then leave them defenseless and consider more safe?

That's like saying we should all become hermits in an attempt to be more sociable.

reply to post by DaTroof


And only someone naive thinks criminals are affected negatively by gun laws.

Originally posted by GrimReaper86

And only someone naive thinks criminals are affected negatively by gun laws.

What are you talking about?
I disagree with you here.

Criminals will be the first ones to support gun laws, that's why they are criminals because they are law obediant.
We have to disarm the innocent people, makes more sense.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


No, just no.

Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because the Swiss were compliant for banking and resource management. Good Lord, what history books have you read?

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Tobacco harms the user, guns harm someone else, and are therefore unconstitutional.

Ignorance on multiple topics in the same thread? Second hand smoke is just as harmful if not more harmful to people around the smoker than the smoke going through the filter being used by the smokers themselves. Secondly, guns are not unconstitutional since it is written in the Bill of Rights under the second amendment.

The Second Amendment reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

reply to post by SpaDe_


Second hand smoke is a myth. PPM decrease over time, so unless you're standing right next to a burning cigarette or don't have ventilation, you're fine.

Also, the 2nd Amendment is a joke. It was written at a time when the British or Native Americans could have ambushed at any moment. That's not the world we live in.

reply to post by SpaDe_


And adding to the second amendment is this here.

Section 242, Title 18

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

All politicians need to be aware of this law here.
Or maybe not made aware and just jailed or fined or both.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

Second hand smoke is a myth. PPM decrease over time, so unless you're standing right next to a burning cigarette or don't have ventilation, you're fine.

Also, the 2nd Amendment is a joke. It was written at a time when the British or Native Americans could have ambushed at any moment. That's not the world we live in.

Second hand smoke is a myth?

www.cdc.gov...

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.3

In the United States, smoking is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).1

On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.4

Are you intentionally trolling or are you just speaking without any knowledge of the subject?
On average 49K people die from second hand smoke every year. That's not a myth.

The 2nd Amendment is a joke?
How do you even respond to that statement?
You should be ashamed of yourself.