Ron Paul on The Ed Show: “It’s not the gun that’s the danger, it’s the person that’s dangerous.”

Show: The Ed Show
Host: Ed Schultz
Date: August 12, 2009

Ed Schultz: One protester at Obama’s townhall meeting got a lot of attention when he showed up at the rally with a loaded gun, a side arm. Quite an interview on Hardball last night with Chris Matthews. But he mentioned that he was a Ron Paul supporter and that piqued my curiosity.

I want an reaction from the congressman. He joins us on the line now deep in the heart of Texas. Congressman, thanks for your time tonight. I appreciate it. What’s your response to people showing up at a townhall meeting where the President is with a loaded gun?

Ron Paul: Well, I think it bruised a couple of points. One thing I think it really shows a remarkable restraint on the President and his Secret Service because they didn’t over-react. They recognized what the state law was and that this man didn’t break any laws and that he was just practicing a right that he has, so I think this is very good and Obama deserves credit for this.

But I also think what this demonstrates is that it’s the old conservative argument. It’s not the gun that’s the danger, it’s the person that’s dangerous. He’s a peaceful person, he obeyed the law. He was not a man of violence and it went quite well, so I think it was a remarkable demonstration when you compare it to what 19 individuals could do with razor blades versus one man with an armed pistol that happens to be a law-abiding citizen.

Ed Schultz: So Congressman, we know what the law is. He was perfectly legal. He was on private property, but doesn’t it somewhat defy common sense to show up where the President is with a loaded gun just to prove a point?

Ron Paul: Well, to him, and I I don’t even own a gun. So I wouldn’t be interested in doing he had. But no, he was expressing himself. Don’t you think sometimes people use the First Amendment and say terrible things, dumb things, and when the American Civil Liberty Union comes in to defend people […], radical, violent people that who are saying bad things.

So I would think to demonstrate he has a right to do this and he believes, as many people believe that an armed society is a more peaceful society and he proved his point.

Ed Schultz: Well, he…

Ron Paul: I think he was remarkable in proving his point that he was a peaceful man and he caused no trouble.

Ed Schultz: Well, I don’t have a jaded opinion because I’m a gun owner. I don’t have a pistol, but I got deer rifles and shotguns and stuff like that, but we have had a situation in this country where a prisoner came up and overtook a guard and ended up shooting a judge and some other people in a courtroom. So I don’t know how good that guy was in defending the firearm if somebody wanted to go nuts in a crowd when they saw a gun and I’m not trying to replay this, I mean, because it has happened in this country. Here’s the point I want to make…

Ron Paul: Well, can I comment on that?

Ed Schultz: Sure. Sure.

Ron Paul: But you’re just describing something where the government was in charge of the courtroom. They should provide the safety. In a private property, the individual provides the safety.

Ed Schultz: That’s true.

Ron Paul: So you just demonstrated that the government failed on that part. The government had a chance to react here and I think they’ve reacted rather remarkably.

Ed Schultz: Okay, well, but the same situation was apparent here is that something could have happened if someone had seen that and decided to go off the handle and take the gun and do something. I mean, I’m surprised that… I mean, I understand the freedom of speech and all of this stuff and gun ownership, but it just defies common sense to pull a stunt like this to get some attention. Now, I want to move the discussion quickly…

Ron Paul: Now, I don’t think he was doing it for attention getting. I think he just did it all and that’s the way he lives. That’s the way a lot of people live up there.

Ed Schultz: Okay, all right. But I don’t know if he carries a gun to work everyday or not, but he sure showed up at that townhall meeting with the president with a firearm on.

Ron Paul: Well, I did a little campaigning up there and it was sort of a little bit of a surprise to me. I don’t think shocking, and I live in Texas, you know.

Ed Schultz: Sure.

Ron Paul: And there are a lot of guns hanging on gun racks […]

Ed Schultz: And Congressman…

Ron Paul: But it was a little bit of surprising to me.

Ed Schultz: All right. Great to have you on, Congressman Paul. I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you so much.

Ron Paul: Bye bye.


  • randomdude

    Ok, first off, if anyone here thinks the Native Americans run a sovereign independent nation-state, you are HIGHLY mistaken.

    I highly recommend getting educated by going to your local community college and sign up for an anthropology course with a native american focus. It will be, uh, eyeopening, to say the least.

  • mobus


  • longshotlouie

    Even a broken clock is occasionally correct.

    Nice quote.

    • mobus

      you will never get any support from me being sore all the time. longshotlouie don’t write me back anymore.

      • longshotlouie

        Sad to see you go.

        “When it comes time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.”
        – Chief Aupumut

  • mobus

    “Make the most of the Indian Hemp Seed and sow it everywhere.” George Washington

  • Kasado

    No more insane paranoid ranting for me.
    Goodbye Captain Jack
    The comment board is all yours. Have fun alone

    • longshotlouie

      Kasado won’t be ranting here anymore?
      My heart is broken.

      ‘The Unabridged 2nd Amendment’

      • Kasado

        Great, another ‘expert’ interprets the Constitution. I need my guns because of all the nutjobs out there who also own them and would gladly relinquish mine if everyone else did the same. I would much prefer we hack at each other with swords, more skill is needs and the gore is more personal.
        I could also speculate that if George Washington knew that in the future we would make firearms that fire 30 rounds of high velocity teflon tipped ammo in less than one minute he would have altered the 2nd Amendment himself, before publication.

        • longshotlouie

          All that is needed to understand the Constitution is a dictionary.

          Yes, you could speculate about George but would be wrong ….

          • Kasado

            So logshotlouie, you can read the mind of a 210 yr old dead man. Neat trick!

          • Kasado

            How does the dictionary define, …well regulated militia…?

          • longshotlouie

            No need to read his mind when his words are available.
            No need to be a cow to know about milk.

            The dictionary defines, ‘well’ …. ‘regulated’ …. and, ‘militia’.

        • Captain Jack

          Speak for yourself than, nutjob.

          And btw, “teflon tipped” ammo was disproved to be “armor penetrating”. It was anti-gun people like yourself, the Brady gang, & far Left Constitution hating politicians who made the claim (without any scientific proof) that teflon coated handgun bullets penetrate standard Level 1 & 2 law enforcement vests. Teflon coated bullets were actual designed to reduce barrel wear. Unless the bullet contains a hardened steel core / penetrator, by law the government does not classify it as “armor penetrating”.

          And here is another example of anti-gun hysteria, in the state of NJ hollow point bullets are outlawed for state residents. Anti-gun NJ politicians have managed to classify hollow points as “armor penetrating”, regardless of the purpose of hollow points being expansion to prevent over-penetration. It was just an anti-gun scheme to ban bullets – no ammo, no guns, just like the micro-stamping bs you and the rest of them are pushing now.

          Oh one more thing. You claim to own firearms yourself, but a few posts back you also claimed to regularly smoke pot at home. Well bucko, it’s against federal law to be a user of a “controlled substance” and be in possession of firearms. In fact, it’s considered a felony, which legally bars your from own any firearms for the rest of your life. Funny, if you were a gun owner, one would think that you would know this. After all when you fill out the federal background paper work when you purchase a firearm, the form asks if you (the buyer) uses “controlled substances” or has ever been convicted of any felony, domestic abuse, or drug related crimes. Lying on that form is a federal crime in and of itself. You’re asking for at least 3 to 5 years in federal prison.

          I tried to give you some friendly advice about not admitting to using a “controlled substance” over a public website. You better hope that the BATFE isn’t monitoring this website, because now all they have to do is get a judge to issue them a subpena for your personal information off this website, and you’re basically toast. What sweet poetic justice that would be huh? – the Second Amendment hater ends up being charged with a federal firearms felony after preaching about how everyone else’s guns should be banned.

    • Captain Jack

      “Captain Jack will get you high tonight
      And take you to your special island
      Captain Jack will get you by tonight
      Just a little push, and you’ll be smilin’

      Oh yeah,…

      Your sister’s gone out, she’s on a date
      You just sit at home and masturbate
      Your phone is gonna ring soon, but you just can’t wait
      For that call”…..

  • mobus

    I have my own country stupid and my own laws. You are the only ones that have a problem. Your police is not allowed here without my Chiefs permission. I can live peacefully as I want with the Indians permission, and neither you, nor Ron Paul, nor anyone else can ever come here.

    • Kasado

      You are wrong if you believe you are not a part of the US of A and can survive independently. Unless, you are willing to return to hunters and gathers? Our problems are also yours. Sorry about that.

      • Captain Jack

        If you are “truly sorry about that”, then let them make their own individual decisions instead of suggesting they can’t remain independent of the U.S.

        Why should they listen to you, somebody who wants to “compromise” liberty away for the guise of “law”.

        • Kasado

          I suppose you are one of those how want freedom, but will deny my right to smoke pot in the privacy of my own house after work.

          • Captain Jack

            I don’t care about what you do, what you smoke, who you have relations with, whether you believe on god or not, those aren’t my concerns. Live and let Live is my motto. My only concern is protecting our civil liberties from the ruling elite that wants nothing more than to destroy it. And do yourself a favor don’t public admit you smoke pot over the Internet – the government is monitoring us (or have you forgot that Ron Paul supporters have been labeled “right-wing extremists”).

            And the so called “war on drugs” is just another governmental attempt to destroy liberty under the guise of “law”. Remember, the government and “laws” are great at creating criminals out thin air. Creating criminals out thin also happens to be a great source of revenue (extortion) for certain governmental agencies that need a “reason” to justify their oppressive existence.

      • mobus

        I’m never wrong about anything. If you were to drive here you would see our Nations (Your Entering Our Nation) sign.
        Native Americans never needed the Europeans. Strange that foreigner’s think they mean so much.
        Saying a catastrophe were to hit the earth our Nation would probably build us underground shelters to house us while everyone else is above swinging guns around. In an economic collapse our Nation would probably provide our food and other things.
        Irregardless of who you vote in this great European gussied country called America you’re never going to be free to smoke pot or anything else that you have already experienced in the past.
        Yet to be honest about how white people have shackled us is racist. You make your own prison cell or your own kind makes your prison cell for you. But never a Native American. Indian cops here refuse to do much in the fashion of white people. But heck, You are all so much more sophisticated then me. I’m just a stupid roach to be stepped on by your highness.

        • longshotlouie

          His chip gets heavier, his shoulder more sore.

        • Kasado

          Your arrogance is showing. You would make a poor leader in your nation. hopefully there are elders who are more wise.
          You ARE wrong if you believe that somehow your people can return to the ‘old ways’, those days are long gone and many generations past. After the white mans ways were forced upon your people most of the knowledge was lost forever. Does anyone in your nation even know how to fashion leather clothing 100% naturally anymore? Where are the bison to feed and clothe you? Will you become farmers?
          In fact, when the fall inevitable happens your nation will have no advantage over any other.

          • longshotlouie

            Wow, the Bitter Twins.
            Or maybe husband and wife?

          • mobus

            We have bison down the road. They’re privately owned by some guy on his property. I’m not looking for a government position, this government requires a degree in business. I don’t own the government I’m just part of the community. Most Native Americans didn’t stick with Native Americans in the past so they’ve become too white and lost their heritage, too bad, Native Americans were great people. Anybody could stitch leather clothing. i use man made materials, I’m a vegetarian.

          • Kasado

            The truth does sting mightly. Doesn’t it Julia?

          • Kasado

            Thank you Mobus for being civil and informative. Recently, all I have received is abuse and insults when I am only voicing my opinion in a polite manner. Sure I disagree with some people, but I try to avoid being course.
            When a poster resorts to name calling and insults they have lost the argument and I ignore them.

  • mobus

    Weapons are always essential to freedom.
    That or a good sense of humor.
    You have to explain exactly what part of the constitution is exceptable, and what laws you are going to allow a government to write and uphold.

    On July 14, 1798, President John Adams signed the Sedition Act, making it a crime to publicly criticize the U.S. government, president or federal officials.

    SEC. I Be it enacted . . ., That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

    SEC. 2. That if any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them. or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

    SEC. 3. That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

    SEC. 4. That this act shall continue to be in force until March 3, 1801, and no longer….

    The 18th Amendment created by Wayne Bidwell Wheeler and U. S. Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas

    The 18th Amendment reads:

    Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
    Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

    Is it just me.
    Or does everyone feel that white people suck?

    • longshotlouie

      Did you really need to copy&paste the rest of that just so you could rant racist?

      • mobus


        • Captain Jack

          Well then, you should understand the importance in being properly armed to preserve your heritage, liberty and protect yourself from the tyranny of the U.S. federal government and it’s corrupt politicians.

        • longshotlouie

          This blog is not on the reservation.

          • mobus

            There are no reservations anymore longshotlouie. A reservation was something that the United States and your family stuck the Native American’s on to try to survive. Today Indian took their land and their money and began to buy their original land back from your European family. Today all Indian land is called an Indian Nation.

          • longshotlouie

            The statement was both figurative and rhetorical, but I am sure that it was hard to see through your anger.

            While the Native Americans were being herded onto reservations my family was attempting to escape 600 years of slavery in eastern Europe. Your whining is not impressive to me.

            I pray that the Indian Nation survives, in spite of you.

  • Kasado

    Guns exist, people have them. In fact, the only way to control there use is to control the one expendable item- bullets. If all sales of bullets were documented and somehow tagged, law enforcement could trace most improper use. Of course some one could manufacture their own, but that would also be evidence of intent.

    • Captain Jack

      Ah so the real truth comes out. You’re left wing Progressive calling for more gun-control schemes such as “micro-stamping” and “bullet serialization”.

      And by the way, there are already numerous studies that have disproved the effectiveness of “micro-stamping” and “bullet serialization”. It’s a back door attempt at gun control designed to ban firearms because it will be physically impossible to even comply with it – every gun owner & Second Amendment rights activist already knows this.

      Tell me, how one exactly “micro-stamps” shotgun shells or “serialize” pellets like #9 buckshot? And what about brass catchers? One can simply collect the spent rounds and dispose of them – the same goes for revolvers. Any micro-stamping on firing pins can easily be defeated in the same method criminals already use to deface firearm serial numbers. Also it can’t be applied to high-powered .22cal air guns that can generate velocities up to over 1,500fps (enough to kill someone). Funny though, for somebody who claims to own firearms (from your previous post), you certainly don’t seem to have a thorough understanding of them.

      Seriously, why come on here and lie about who you really are? – a Constitution hating left-wing Progressive. Stop posing as someone who supports the Constitution, we see though your little Neo-Marxist facade. Go play on the Daily Kos and frolic with likes of Van Jones, Bill Ayers, and the rest of the Neo-Marxist movement.

      • Kasado

        Uncomprimising people like you, Captain Jack, really hurt the gun rights effort. Instead of a sane, rational discourse, your hate filled ranting enables anti-gun evangelist to use you as an example of why guns should be restricted. In fact I believe someone like you should be restricted to owning a single shot muzzle loaded rifle just like the ones used when the Constitution was written. That way by the time you reload in 2-3 minutes someone could fire back.

        And why not somehow mold into the actual projectle some form of ID a micro bead perhaps. No bullet is ever destroyed enough to unidentified anyway. And if you someone decides to mold your own (unlikely) this would again show illegal intent.

        I don’t want to restrict anyones ownership of guns, but to reach some kind of comprimise with those who point out that there were 30,896 gun deaths in the US in 2006 and climbing.

        • longshotlouie

          Jack argues for liberty and you argue for restriction, but it is he that hurts the gun rights effort?

          Your brainwashing is complete. Up is down, day is night ……..

          • Kasado

            No, you doggedly hold onto your convictions and definition of freedom while the other side points at statistics of people dieing via a gun. Guess what, unless pro-gun learns to compromise we will all loss. Big! Gov probably cannot take our guns peacefully , but they sure can make it harder to acquire more.

        • Captain Jack

          Actually, it’s people like you that are the very greatest threat to this nation. You’ve “compromised” away our civil liberties for “progressivism” and “statism”. What you advocate alters the whole concept of a Republic form of Democracy with limited federal government. All you & your Progressive / statist ilk do is empower a large abusive federal regime over the libertarian principles within the Constitution, you work by incrementalism to undermine the Constitutional constraints on federal (Central State) power. You give birth to the forces of tyranny, you are their foolish enablers.

          Tell me, exactly how compromising liberty away promotes liberty? I’m curious about what other aspects of the Constitution you feel are “outdated” as well? Next you’ll be telling us how UN “international law” must trump the Constitution in favor of the “global governed community”. Perhaps you feel no need for the 1st Amendment or the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments too. Since when do we pick and choose? I bet in your little Progressive mind you have something cooking up which is far more sinister.

        • Captain Jack

          Please see “2A Today for the USA” by debunking your little anti-gun myth that somehow our Founding Fathers only intended the people of future generations to be limited to 1700’s era small arms technology. First off, let me say that your anti-constitution argument has be to one of the oldest and most flawed anti-second amendment myths. I’m surprised that you stooped so low on the “gun control logic scale”. So, somehow we’re suppose to believe the Constitution ONLY applied to “technology” of late 1700’s, but not to those principals of individual liberty, and that those liberties do not apply today? You sir, are quite full of cow pies, like 20,000 useless gun control laws that are already on the books. Stop attempting to legislate your personal tastes upon others. It amazes me that you conveniently ignored how firearm ownership actually deters crime and saves lives. Perhaps it’s time we hold people like you criminal liable for the lives that could’ve been saved had the victims of violent crime been properly armed instead of being disarmed under the guise of “law” & “compromise” – after all, you’re infringing upon the basic human right of self-preservation. I take great offense that someone like you thinks they have any “right” to prevent / limit my right to own firearms for the lawful purpose of protecting my family, myself, my state, and the Constitution. Clearly you have quite the totalitarian mindset, you feel this need to control and curb the freedom of others for your personal enjoyment / empowerment – now that’s hateful. And history has shown us time and again the effects of such a mindset.

          In the 20th Century:

          * Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
          * Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

          How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power – and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.

          Also view “No guns for Negros” “No Guns for Negroes ” exposes the racist history of American gun control laws

        • Captain Jack

          “Kasado replies:
          September 7th, 2009 at 8:33 am

          Uncomprimising people like you, Captain Jack, really hurt the gun rights effort. Instead of a sane, rational discourse, your hate filled ranting enables anti-gun evangelist to use you as an example of why guns should be restricted. In fact I believe someone like you should be restricted to owning a single shot muzzle loaded rifle just like the ones used when the Constitution was written. That way by the time you reload in 2-3 minutes someone could fire back.

          And why not somehow mold into the actual projectle some form of ID a micro bead perhaps. No bullet is ever destroyed enough to unidentified anyway. And if you someone decides to mold your own (unlikely) this would again show illegal intent.

          I don’t want to restrict anyones ownership of guns, but to reach some kind of comprimise with those who point out that there were 30,896 gun deaths in the US in 2006 and climbing”.

          Do you even understand how many people reload their spent brass? “Criminal intent” for reloading? What are we f-ing the USSR now or Nazi Germany? Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Wow you’re almost as good as the federal government in creating criminals out of thin air.

          Why do you continue to ignore that numerous studies have proved micro-stamping unfeasible? It’s being used as an excuse to ban guns that can’t comply with the state micro-stamping legislation within states of CA, NY, IL and CT. The fact is that NO guns can comply with it, that’s why it’s a gun ban in disguise. You’re promoting the same crap as the gun control groups that want to use any method to disarm Americans. Gun control isn’t about crime control, it’s about people control, and you’re promoting it.

          “Anti-gun evangelist” What are you even talking about? You’re the only loan Fascist-Progressive wolf on here “rating” anti-gun irrationalities. Clearly, you do want to restrict peoples right of firearms ownership. If fact, you, the criminals, certain politicians, and the government think a lot alike – disarmed victims.

          Clearly, you have a different political agenda than the preservation our constitutional rights, returning to a properly constrained federal government, and holding politicians to their oath to uphold the Constitution. Again, stop lying that you support and uphold the Constitution. Stop lying that you support the second amendment (“compromised” version isn’t the second amendment, do we compromise on the on let’s say the 5th amendment too?). Answer the questions; do you support Ron Paul? Who did you vote for President? You smell like an Obamacrat to me. Why not be truthful about it? Why post here attempting to blend in, attempting to feed people disinformation, and attempting to pass yourself as something that you are not? I’ve been to my share of Ron Paul rallies and libertarian rallies and nobody that I’ve encountered in the pro-Constitution movement espouses any of the things that you do in regards to the second amendment.

          And yes, I still occasional breakout the old muzzle loader (Thompson Center Fire black powder .50 cal) for deer hunting (perhaps you want to ban hunting too). Tell how me you’re going to “micro-stamp” that one eh? Hey, did you even know that black powder rifles can even exceed .50 cal – better ban them too right? “They’re high powered anti-material weapons” – right? But for self-defense I prefer my Glock 20 & 26, and Remington 870 pump action 12 gauge using 2 ¾ # 9 military grade buckshot (not that it was really any of your business).

  • VR
  • Mobus

    I’m not a boy. I’m almost half of one hundred years old. I have been shot with a gun and when you bleed from a gun you almost don’t stop bleeding. It’s a very powerful weapon. I know guns will only cause people problems especially your children. Legal or not guns will only get people into trouble. I’m trying to save your children from suffering like I did and to keep them from going to jail because the Mr.Ron Paul here will not be there when they go to jail, only a lawyer will and jail will be unmerciful.

    In case you haven’t noticed the constitution is only uniform to a peaceful society. The constitution is not required to be upheld by the U.S. congress under a disinformed violent revolt by the people through a dictator leader. Remember you’re not just living in your country alone, you are living in our country with other peaceful citizens, and I will not allow people who use censorship to create a revolt against our government. So it’s not going to happen, it’s over.

    • VR

      Are you proposing that Americans not be able to defend themselves?

    • Captain Jack

      There are over 60 million law-abiding American gun owners. Who the hell are you to espouse the infringement of our constitutional right? The rest of us should not be subjected to your personal demons and issues, yet alone be left defenseless against criminals. Disarming law-abiding citizens only creates more victims of violence. Look at Chicago and Washington D.C or any major city that severely restricts or outright bans people from using firearms for self-defense.

      And care to explain your insane statement about how “Congress isn’t require to uphold the Constitution”? Everyone who has ever serviced in the military or a civil service / governmental position takes the oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The problem arises when people like you and those within the government choose NOT to uphold the Constitution – this only leads to the destruction of liberty. “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them”. -Thomas Jefferson

      Perhaps Mobus should move to China or North Korea – those are countries that suit people like you best.

  • Mrs. Pilgrim

    In case you hadn’t noticed, He Whose Name Is Couched In Negativity, this is a private website. They can for DAMN sure shut you up in a private website, if they think you’re being an idiot.

    As, for instance, in my private home, I might prefer that salesmen not come through the door with guns. Sure, you’ve a right to it, but this is my house and I’m not going to let you get the drop on me.

    That’s the problem with kids like you: you don’t understand the difference between “private” and “public.” Possibly, that’s why you throw public tantrums.

    And by the way…”You don’t need a gun if you ain’t a sissy”? Tell that to our soldiers, boy. You go on and tell them they’re a bunch of sissies. I dare ya.

  • IDon’tSupportRandPaul

    This site, the Alex Jones site and any affiliated site uses censorship to the utmost availability.
    Lies! All of it.

  • IDon’tSupportRandPaul

    Is this the America I am to expect?
    Silence to opposition.

  • jacob

    I fully support Ron Paul, but there has to be a point in time where you question someone’s motives. As a concealed weapons person myself, I’d NEVER bring my gun to a public forum where the President or any other elected official was. To me, it is just a set up for trouble. Similarly, I’d never bring a gun into a bank or post office, no matter what neighborhood I was in.

    I have to agree with Child Hacker – this is kind of a black eye for Ron Paul supporters.

    • IDon’tSupportRandPaul

      You don’t take a gun because they are dangerous.
      Guns are dangerous and the fact that uses censorship on comments it doesn’t like proves all of you are dangerous with dishonest motives.
      So much for your pro American pro free speech.
      It doesn’t exist.

      • Captain Jack

        To “I don’t support Rand Paul”
        What’s up with you? A person who claims to espouse the First Amendment while trying to destroy the Second Amendment. Either you support the Constitution in its entirety or you don’t really support it at all. Since when do we pick and choice the amendments we agree with while discarding the ones we don’t? It’s people like you who are “dangerous”, people like you who will give up our individual liberties and sell the American people into elitist controlled government enslavement.

        No thanks pal – not interested in what you’re selling. Shouldn’t you be hanging out on the Daily Kos?

    • Captain Jack

      Well, I don’t see this as a black eye. According to the Department of Homeland Insecurity, they already think that gun owners, people who support 3rd party candidates, oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, are anti-abortion, oppose Socialism, and believe in the Constitution are “right-wing extremists” anyway. I’m kind of surprised that you’re supporting the government’s position on this -worried about looking like a “nut”. Just the fact that you’re Ron Paul supporter is enough “evidence” for the government to considered you an “extremist”. I’m sure you heard all about the reports.

  • IDon’tSupportRandPaul

    Guns are extremely dangerous.
    Hopefully one day we can rid the world from them.

    • Herewe Goagain

      MegaPansy Alert:

      Dangerous inanimate objects?
      Like 5gallon buckets, or toilets?

      Must be scary when they jump up and bite you.

      • IDon’tSupportRandPaul

        You don’t need a gun son if you ain’t a sissy.

        • Captain Jack

          I see that you clearly don’t live in reality, perhaps you live in a video game. Really, let’s see how that works out for you if you’re ever car jacked, or robbed by a knife or gun-wielding criminal. Let’s see how fast you can handle yourself while being unarmed during an armed home invasion with multiple assailants. Bet you’d change your tune real fast if a bunch of criminal thugs were gang raping some female member of your family and you couldn’t do a damn thing about it because you weren’t armed with a firearm to stop it. The only thing that stops a criminal with a gun, is a potential victim with a gun who knows how to use it. Oh and by the way, go read the Constitution, there’s that pesky old 2nd Amendment, the one that states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm, but you have absolutely no right to prevent other who do by attempting to legislate your own person tastes. In other words, it’s your stupidity and people just like you who are messing with the liberty of people like me who do own firearms for the personal protection of our love ones, family, and ourselves. A couple of more things, since school is in session, the Supreme Court (Hell v. DC) declared that owning a firearms is indeed an individual right protected by the Constitution. And one more lesson for a Constitution hating Neo-Marxist moron such as yourself, the police have no legal obligation to provide for your personal, individual protection – go read up on another Supreme Court case called Castle Rock v. Gonzales. In other words, if the cops don’t save your pathetic behind in time, you or family has no right to sue the government for not prodiving you with personal protection. Just remember that if you ever have to call 911, because when seconds count the police are always minutes away – if they even show up at all.

          • Kasado

            Do you belong to a ‘well regulated Militia’? Do not edit the Constitution to fit your personal ideology and us it as a excuse. I have guns, but I don’t misuse our founding fathers written words to justify my ownership.

          • Captain Jack

            Kasado replies:
            September 6th, 2009 at 11:26 am

            “Do you belong to a ‘well regulated Militia’? Do not edit the Constitution to fit your personal ideology and us it as a excuse. I have guns, but I don’t misuse our founding fathers written words to justify my ownership”
            What part of DC V Heller don’t you understand? 2A is an individual right. It has nothing to do w/ service strictly in the “militia”.

            If fact, do you even understand the history of the “militia” to begin with? See,

            The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time.[1] The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States. Types of militia within modern US:

            The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia[2]. The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
            The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for the draft)[2]
            A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.[4]
            Private militia forces, which are made up of non-officially organized individuals who have formed paramilitary organizations based on their own interpretation of the concept of the militia.

            Your claim of being a firearms owner or someone who understand 2A is quite questionable. Clearly you are a Progressive, you’re the one who is using your personal ideology to “interpret” the Constitution to suit YOUR misguided views – Not me.

            Here’s another question? Are you even a Ron Paul supporter? Maybe you haven’t noticed but Ron Paul happens to support the Second Amendment – which is something that you certainly don’t.

            Lastly, why not prove YOUR claim that I’ve “edited” the Constitution or the “words” of our Founding Fathers.

            “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” – Thomas Jefferson.

  • Child Hacker

    It might make sense to some of us to bring a gun to a protest, but for the rest of the world, we look like radical right wing extremists. We look like nut jobs. Thanks a lot kid!

    • Herewe Goagain

      Pansy Alert:

      Someone seems to have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the statist mentality.

      Have not heard the rest of the world say this, not that it would make a damn bit of difference. We lead instead of follow.

      Speak for yourself, and enjoy your nutjob status.

      • Child Hacker

        You don’t lead crap, you are a ron paul FOLLOWER. lol!

        Let me know when you decide to get off your ass and lead.

  • daniel valley

    About Michael Moore, he always speaks the truth not.

    When he came out with a book blaming the Saudis for 9/11, even though he was a member of a forum that had thoroughly trashed the official story… well, that reminded me that he was a pal of the Bush Family. Hmm…. That got me thinking about his book on the Colombine “massacre”. His job was to try to persuade people to give up their guns. Hmm again. It was easy to check the veracity of his Colombine Tale:

    Thank you Michael. Whatever direction you point in, I know to head the other way. When you began promoting universal healthcare, I knew you were speaking for the forces of evil.

  • christine

    I strongly suggest that everyone get educated and pay attention to what is happening concerning the upcoming government-controlled, mass, forced flu vaccination plan. We only have a couple of months before we will be hit with something larger than any other issue. This is designed to change our country, the world as we know it.

    Much has already been posted on the several “Health” sections of this forum. Please check out the information, especially more towards the bottom of the entries.

    For anyone who is working towards preserving our liberty, freedom from tyranny…check out the agenda (there’s always an agenda) from the Swine Flu Conference held in Washington D.C., especially #2 & #6

    Jane Bergermeister has filed a criminal indictment against the World Health Organization (WHO) and Obama due to the evidence she has about contaminated flu vaccines being distributed for mass depopulation. Know her story, her case.

    Important Websites to Keep Informed

  • longshotlouie

    Let the National Republican Senatorial Committee know what you think.

  • B.D. Sylvia

    I thought the Congressman made ‘Perfect Sence’. . . a lot of us here in Montana do the same thing ( ‘Me’ for one . . . ) I have been ‘Doing’ it for over 20yrs. We don’t have a lot of ‘Serious’ crime here, ‘Because’ of this fact. All of the ‘Lib’ crap, is the ‘CAUSE’ of problems assocated with firearms, Not by those who carry them.
    I looks like I have found who I will be ‘Voteing’ for this time around. ‘Good Luck’, Ron
    I ‘Still’ would like an ‘ANSWER’ to this question . . . ‘WHO’ can be ‘Trusted’ to ‘DO’ an audit of the ‘FED’ ?, I would like a email sent to me with the answer. ‘Thank You’ B.D.Sylvia