devilman96
New member
- 2,056
- 17
- 0
- Location
- Boca Raton, FL
My truck is leaving little to guess about whom I am supporting for the presidential primaries… I wanted to ask my choice in candidates’ campaign about their take on MV ownership and surplus sales to the public being that we are all feel pressure here lately from the DRMO and GL when it comes to some of their more annoying practices like post sale EUCs and recalling parts which… well… Don’t fit any category of “national security threat”.
I was also kind’a curious to see how long it would take to get a reply (if I was even going to get one from them)… Posted below are my questions and their response which came about 16 hours later…
.. and guys please… I’m not trying to open this up for debate or a “my candidate is better than your candidate” sling match… If you disagree with my choice in backing please write your preferred candidate and post their response to your questions.
MY QUESTIONS…
I would like to ask the Ron Paul campaign some specific questions regarding military vehicles under private ownership by collectors in the US.
1. DRMO/surplus sales to the public were handed over to private
contractors (Gov. Liquidation) under the Clinton administration which
has put 1000's of US businesses out of business over the past 10
years. What is Dr Paul's take on surplus Military sales and big
business handling them as opposed to how it use to be under DRMO/gov run auctions and control?
2 As a result of the above and contractors mishandling sales by mistakenly selling restricted items to the wrong people many collectors
have recently come under threat by overzealous "security"
measures and or DRMO recalls which would remove or repossess our
vehicles. Please keep in mind these policies are being made out of a
desperate paranoid response to F15 and F16 parts being sold by mistake
to former arms dealers with connections to Iran… We, as owners, own
military VEHICLES not aircraft but are being caught up in the
repercussion of this. What is RP's feelings on private collectors keeping retired, former military vehicles as a hobby?
Thanks, Mike
THEIR RESPONCE
Dear Mike,
Your question is very specific, and we here at the headquarters don't have quite enough information to give you an “official” response. I do know that as an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment, Dr. Paul would fight for your right to own military surplus vehicles. I also know that Dr. Paul is opposed to the type of partial privatization that equates to government enforced monopolies. He would much rather the surplus be turned over to the free market so that those business you refer to could still thrive in our United States of America. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help, I'll post the official campaign response on the 2nd Amendment for your consideration.
Thank you for your email, I hope we can count on your support.
Stephen Farrington
Ron Paul PCC
----------------
Thank you for writing to us with your thoughts/concerns about gun control and the Second Amendment. Congressman Ron Paul recognizes that the Second Amendment is "the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right". In other words, if we, as free individuals are able to take up arms against a corrupt government, we can secure, for ourselves, all the other rights written into the Constitution. Without Second Amendment rights, we open the doors to losing all our other rights. In a speech to Congress on January 3, 2003, (introducing H.R. 1096) Congressman Paul quoted Thomas
Jefferson: "Thomas Jefferson said 'The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.' Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act."
For full text see:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr010903.htm
Dr. Paul introduced H.R.1096, which repeals the 1993 Brady Bill. The Brady Bill (H.R. 1025) established a waiting period/instant check system. H.R. 1096 also repeals the "Child Safety Lock Act of 2005" and the "sporting purpose" distinction. The "sporting purpose" distinction can be used to ban certain types of guns. You can read the entire text of H.R.1096 here.
Assault Weapons
In his April 21, 2003 newsletter, Dr. Paul takes the issue of assault weapons head-on. He writes that "the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying "That could never happen here, this is
America"- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.
Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:
"Suppose the Second amendment said 'A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"
For full text see:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst042103.htm
Snipers, Terror, and Gun Control
Here is part of a brief article about the sniper shootings (Fall 2002) where Dr. Paul reiterates that it is not guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens that is the danger. Despite all the talk about rifles, the undeniable truth is that armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens. We can't know, of course, that armed citizens would have prevented any of the shootings or brought the sniper to justice more quickly. Yet it's hard to imagine the sniper choosing Texas or another well-armed southern state to commit his crimes. The bottom line is that criminals seek defenseless, unarmed victims. Any criminal operating in the suburbs of Washington DC, southern Maryland, and northern Virginia- all bastions of anti-gun sentiment- can reasonably assume that his victims will not shoot back.
For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes. Since September 11th, that sense of security has been shaken, resulting in a big increase in gun sales across the country. Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them."
For full text see:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst102802.htm
For more articles on his position on guns, see:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=17
I hope this helps you better understand his position on guns and gun control. If, after reading the suggested documents, you still have questions or concerns, please feel free to email us back.
Thank you for your interest in Congressman Ron Paul.
I was also kind’a curious to see how long it would take to get a reply (if I was even going to get one from them)… Posted below are my questions and their response which came about 16 hours later…
.. and guys please… I’m not trying to open this up for debate or a “my candidate is better than your candidate” sling match… If you disagree with my choice in backing please write your preferred candidate and post their response to your questions.
MY QUESTIONS…
I would like to ask the Ron Paul campaign some specific questions regarding military vehicles under private ownership by collectors in the US.
1. DRMO/surplus sales to the public were handed over to private
contractors (Gov. Liquidation) under the Clinton administration which
has put 1000's of US businesses out of business over the past 10
years. What is Dr Paul's take on surplus Military sales and big
business handling them as opposed to how it use to be under DRMO/gov run auctions and control?
2 As a result of the above and contractors mishandling sales by mistakenly selling restricted items to the wrong people many collectors
have recently come under threat by overzealous "security"
measures and or DRMO recalls which would remove or repossess our
vehicles. Please keep in mind these policies are being made out of a
desperate paranoid response to F15 and F16 parts being sold by mistake
to former arms dealers with connections to Iran… We, as owners, own
military VEHICLES not aircraft but are being caught up in the
repercussion of this. What is RP's feelings on private collectors keeping retired, former military vehicles as a hobby?
Thanks, Mike
THEIR RESPONCE
Dear Mike,
Your question is very specific, and we here at the headquarters don't have quite enough information to give you an “official” response. I do know that as an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment, Dr. Paul would fight for your right to own military surplus vehicles. I also know that Dr. Paul is opposed to the type of partial privatization that equates to government enforced monopolies. He would much rather the surplus be turned over to the free market so that those business you refer to could still thrive in our United States of America. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help, I'll post the official campaign response on the 2nd Amendment for your consideration.
Thank you for your email, I hope we can count on your support.
Stephen Farrington
Ron Paul PCC
----------------
Thank you for writing to us with your thoughts/concerns about gun control and the Second Amendment. Congressman Ron Paul recognizes that the Second Amendment is "the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right". In other words, if we, as free individuals are able to take up arms against a corrupt government, we can secure, for ourselves, all the other rights written into the Constitution. Without Second Amendment rights, we open the doors to losing all our other rights. In a speech to Congress on January 3, 2003, (introducing H.R. 1096) Congressman Paul quoted Thomas
Jefferson: "Thomas Jefferson said 'The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.' Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act."
For full text see:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr010903.htm
Dr. Paul introduced H.R.1096, which repeals the 1993 Brady Bill. The Brady Bill (H.R. 1025) established a waiting period/instant check system. H.R. 1096 also repeals the "Child Safety Lock Act of 2005" and the "sporting purpose" distinction. The "sporting purpose" distinction can be used to ban certain types of guns. You can read the entire text of H.R.1096 here.
Assault Weapons
In his April 21, 2003 newsletter, Dr. Paul takes the issue of assault weapons head-on. He writes that "the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying "That could never happen here, this is
America"- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.
Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:
"Suppose the Second amendment said 'A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"
For full text see:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst042103.htm
Snipers, Terror, and Gun Control
Here is part of a brief article about the sniper shootings (Fall 2002) where Dr. Paul reiterates that it is not guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens that is the danger. Despite all the talk about rifles, the undeniable truth is that armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens. We can't know, of course, that armed citizens would have prevented any of the shootings or brought the sniper to justice more quickly. Yet it's hard to imagine the sniper choosing Texas or another well-armed southern state to commit his crimes. The bottom line is that criminals seek defenseless, unarmed victims. Any criminal operating in the suburbs of Washington DC, southern Maryland, and northern Virginia- all bastions of anti-gun sentiment- can reasonably assume that his victims will not shoot back.
For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes. Since September 11th, that sense of security has been shaken, resulting in a big increase in gun sales across the country. Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them."
For full text see:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst102802.htm
For more articles on his position on guns, see:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=17
I hope this helps you better understand his position on guns and gun control. If, after reading the suggested documents, you still have questions or concerns, please feel free to email us back.
Thank you for your interest in Congressman Ron Paul.
