U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | Second Amendment |
Second Amendment
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:8
There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. They have a legitimate right to come here.
Second Amendment
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 75:3
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their second amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight until they can produce a State driver’s license that is the equivalent of conforming to Federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy–Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may be forced to present a federally approved driver’s license before consulting their doctors for medical treatment.
Second Amendment
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:2
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job; open a bank account; apply for Social Security or Medicare; exercise their Second Amendment rights; or even take an airplane flight unless they can produce a state drivers’ license, or its equivalent, that conforms to federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may even be forced to present a federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting their physicians for medical treatment!
Second Amendment
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:2
In dealing with the problem of violence, there is a large group here in the Congress quite willing to attack the first amendment while defending the second. Likewise, there is a strong contingency here for attacking the second amendment while defending the first.
Second Amendment
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:3
My question is this: Why can we not consistently defend both? Instead, we see plans being laid to appease everyone and satisfy no one. This will be done in the name of curbing violence by undermining first amendment rights and picking away at second amendment rights.
Second Amendment
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:4
Instead of protecting the first and second amendment, we are likely in the name of conciliation to diminish the protections afforded us by both the first and second amendment. It does not make a lot of sense.
Second Amendment
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:19
More gun laws expanding the role of the Federal government in our daily lives while further undermining the first and second amendment will not curb the violence. Understanding the proper constitutional role for government and preventing the government itself from using illegal force to mold society and police the world would go a long way in helping to diminish the violence.
Second Amendment
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:3
However, I am not optimistic that much good will come out of the next days of debate. I think there is a lot of mischief going on here. I see that one-half of this Congress is quite capable and anxious to defend the First Amendment, and I think that is good. I see the other half of the Congress is quite anxious and capable of defending the second amendment, and I think that is good. But it seems strange because see these two groups coming together in a coalition to pass a bill that will undermine the first amendment and undermine the second amendment.
Second Amendment
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:4
That does not make a whole lot of sense to me because I think that we are obligated here in the Congress to defend both the first and the second amendment and were not here for the purpose of undermining both amendments.
Second Amendment
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:6
So I think we should think seriously before we pass more laws whether they undermine the first amendment or whether we pass more laws undermining the second amendment. We do not need more Federal laws.
Second Amendment
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:9
We are unfortunately bound and determined to continue this trend. It looks like we are going to do so today. We are going to place a lot more rules and regulations restricting both the first and second amendment.
Second Amendment
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:10
We are bound and determined to write more rules and regulations dealing with the first and the second amendment, and I do not see this as a good trend. It is said today that those who want to undermine the first amendment, that it is already established that pornography is not protected under the first amendment. And today the goal is to make sure that the depiction of violence is not protected under the first amendment. But do my colleagues know that the major cause of violence in the world throughout history have been abuse of religion and the abuse of philosophy?
Second Amendment
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:12
I say, today we should move carefully and not undermine either the first or the second amendment.
Second Amendment
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:10
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we have had many Members in this Congress cite the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution is cited all the time. Sometimes I see it inconsistently cited, because when it pleases one to cite the Constitution, they do; and when it does not, they forget about it. But just recently we have heard the citing of the Constitution quite frequently. In the impeachment hearings: We have to uphold the Constitution, we have to live by our traditions and our ideals. Just last week we were citing the Constitution endlessly over the second amendment which I strongly support, and which I said the same thing. We must uphold the Constitution to defend the second amendment. But all of a sudden here we have decided to change the Constitution that we are in some way going to restrict the freedom of expression.
Second Amendment
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 68:2
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job; open a bank account; apply for Social Security or Medicare; exercise their Second Amendments rights; or even take an airplane flight unless they can produce a state drivers’ license, or its equivalent, that conforms to federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may even be forced to present a federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting their physicians for medical treatment!
Second Amendment
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 82:9
Before we assume that we can improve the political liberties of foreign citizens, we must meet the responsibility of protecting all civil liberties of our own citizens irrespective of whether it is guaranteeing first and second amendment protections or guaranteeing the balance of power between the states and the federal government as required by the ninth and tenth amendments.
Second Amendment
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 59:2
There is a lot of emphasis around here on the first amendment, and rightfully so. We should defend it. There is a lot of neglect on the second amendment, but there are a lot of Americans that believe that the second amendment is equally as important as the first amendment. So I congratulate the gentleman.
Second Amendment
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 59:10
* These requirements have been voted on in the past in the House and Senate and thus far have not passed either house. It is all to clear that the agenda of the Clinton Administration has always been anti-second amendment, and thus, they have found a way to implement their policies by forcing a gun manufacturer to comply regardless of their legal legitimacy. The Federal government and executive branch have no business — and have no authority — to mandate how a company runs its business.
Second Amendment
16 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 35:3
But let me tell my colleagues, this gag rule argument is a red herring if I have ever seen one. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. This would be like arguing that if we had a prohibition in this bill against passing out guns to civilians in some foreign nation, we would say, we cannot have a prohibition on that because of the second amendment, defending the right to own guns. It would be nonsense. So this has nothing to do with the first amendment; but it does have something to do with the rights of U.S. citizens, Mr. Chairman, in forcibly taking funds through taxes from people who believe strongly against abortion their rights are violated.
Second Amendment
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 82:3
Most security, especially in a free society, is best carried out by individuals protecting their own property and their own lives. The Founders certainly understood this and is the main reason we have the Second amendment. We cannot have a policeman stationed in each of our homes to prevent burglaries, but owners of property with possession of a gun can easily do it. A new giant agency for Homeland Security cannot provide security but it can severely undermine our liberties. This approach may well in the long run make many American feel less secure.
Second Amendment
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:49
The laws recently passed in Congress in response to the terrorist attacks can be compared to the effort by anti-gun fanatics, who jump at every chance to undermine the Second Amendment. When crimes are committed with the use of guns, it’s argued that we must remove guns from society, or at least register them and make it difficult to buy them. The counter argument made by Second Amendment supporters correctly explains that this would only undermine the freedom of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to reduce crime.
Second Amendment
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:7
In this case we are moving in the right direction because we are trying to remove some prohibitions that are limiting our Second Amendment rights. Our job here in the Congress should be to protect the Second Amendment, never to get in the way of the Second Amendment. This is why, although this amendment improves the bill and the bill is moving in that direction, I can support it, but we ought to do a lot more.
Second Amendment
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:8
Another example of how private property could work was the recent example at LAX Airport. Private owners of an airline assumed responsibility for security at the gate. Many lives were probably saved with El Al guards, private guards with private weapons, that tragically are denied to American airlines. Because of an agreement between one foreign airline and the U.S. Department of Transportation, it has been given permission to protect their people better than we are allowed to protect ourselves. That to me just seems downright foolish, and I think we in the Congress should demand our rights of the Second Amendment and insist on the responsibility of property owners to protect their property and to protect our lives.
Second Amendment
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:10
The best step in the world, of course, would be to pass my bill, H.R. 2896, which would just legalize once again the Second Amendment and allow our airlines to make the decision, and let the people decide. The airlines that say, we have guns in the cockpit, I would go fly that airline; if they say no, we do not believe in guns, let it be.
Second Amendment
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 73:4
A clear understanding of private property and an owner’s responsibility to protect it has been seriously undermined. This was especially true for the airline industry. The benefit of gun ownership and second amendment protections were prohibited. The government was given the responsibility for airline safety through FAA rules and regulations, and it failed miserably.
Second Amendment
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 80:8
Recently the House passed a bill allowing for the arming of pilots. This was necessary because the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) simply ignored legislation we had passed previously. TSA is, of course, a key component of this new department. Do we really want to grant authority over appropriations to a Department containing an agency that has so brazenly ignored the will of Congress as recently as has the TSA? In fact, there has been a constant refusal of the bureaucracy to recognize that one of the best ways to enhance security is to legalize the second amendment and allow private property owners to defend their property. Instead, the security services are federalized.
Second Amendment
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 80:9
The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that get to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls. I am reluctant, to say the least, to give any new powers to bureaucrats who refuse to recognize the vital role free citizens exercising their second amendment rights play in homeland security.
Second Amendment
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!
November 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 101:5
HR 5710 also expands the federal police state by allowing the attorney general to authorize federal agency inspectors general and their agents to carry firearms and make warrantless arrests. One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is the increase in the number of federal officials authorized to carry guns. This is especially disturbing when combined with the increasing trend toward restricting the ability of average Americans to exercise their second amendment rights. Arming the government while disarming the public encourages abuses of power.
Second Amendment
Restoring the Second Amendment
January 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Second Amendment
Restoring the Second Amendment
January 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 5:2
Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.”
Second Amendment
Restoring the Second Amendment
January 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 5:3
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 form 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.
Second Amendment
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a firm believer in the second amendment to the United States Constitution and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 153), which repeals the misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe that the second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect the Constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose this bill.
Second Amendment
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 47:8
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired H.R. 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
Second Amendment
Reject UN Gun Control!
September 18, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.” This legislation prohibits US taxpayer dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the Second Amendment. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act also expresses the sense of Congress that proposals to tax, or otherwise limit, the right to keep and bear arms are “reprehensible and deserving of condemnation.”
Second Amendment
Reject UN Gun Control!
September 18, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 101:2
Over the past decade, the UN has waged a campaign to undermine gun rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to “tackle” the proliferation and “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons. Just this June, the UN tried to “tackle” gun rights by sponsoring a “Week of Action Against Small Arms.” Of course, by small arms, the UN really means all privately owned firearms.
Second Amendment
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:27
Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of personal self-defense guaranteed by an explicit Second Amendment freedom, we still do not have armed pilots in the sky. Instead of more responsibility being given to the airlines, the government has taken over the entire process. This has been encouraged by the airline owners, who seek subsidies and insurance protection. Of course, the nonsense of never resisting has been forever vetoed by all passengers.
Second Amendment
District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act
29 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 72:6
Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation to restore the Federal Government’s respect for the right to bear arms throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on gun rights nationwide — not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and “instant” background check imposed on gun purchases, and delete the “sporting purposes” test that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be “non-sporting.” Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers’ dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the second amendment.
Second Amendment
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 31:6
In other words, this resolution takes the position that we should go in Lebanon and repeal the Lebanese Second Amendment rights so that nobody has any guns. I just see that as an interference that is going to lead to trouble.
Second Amendment
Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 106:2
As a firm believer in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and an opponent of all Federal gun laws, I cannot support a bill that imposes new, unconstitutional gun controls on Americans. I believe that the Second Amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1703), which repeals misguided Federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill.
Second Amendment
Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 106:6
The “armor piercing” bullets restriction imposes a 15 years mandatory minimum sentence for just carrying or possessing such bullets — even without a gun — during or in “relation to” a crime of violence or drug trafficking. Given the wide scope of criminal laws and the fact that people are on occasion accused of crimes they did not commit, this provision promises to discourage many non-violent, law- abiding individuals from possessing ammunition protected under the Second Amendment. Further, it does not take much imagination to see how such a provision could be used by an anti-gun prosecutor in the prosecution of an individual who used a gun in self defense, especially considering that use of such bullets to murder can result in a death sentence. In such instances, a defendant who exercised self defense may well accept a guilty plea bargain to avoid the severe enhanced penalties imposed under S. 397.
Second Amendment
Statement On Helen Chenoweth-Hage
13 November 2006 2006 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, with the passing last month of Helen Chenoweth-Hage, America has lost one of its true champions of liberty and constitutional government, and I have lost a valued friend and colleague. When Helen served in the House of Representatives, she gained a national following for her principled and uncompromising defense of private property, the Second Amendment, American sovereignty, and limited federal government.
Second Amendment
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act — Part 1
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 61:2
In my opinion, H.R. 2640 is a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the second amendment.
Second Amendment
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
I tend to agree with Charlton Heston, who recently said that the Constitution's Second Amendment is the most important. Without the ability to protect themselves and their property, discussion of any other rights is only so much talk.
Second Amendment
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Under the current state of the law, the citizens of states which have drivers' licenses that do not conform to the federal standards by October 1, 2000, will find themselves essentially stripped of their ability to participate in life as we know it. On that date, Americans will not be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their Second Amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight, unless they can produce a state-issued ID that conforms to the federal specifications. Further, under the terms of the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health-care law, Americans may be forced to present this federally-approved drivers' license before consulting a physician for medical treatment!
Second Amendment
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Lest anyone incorrectly assume assaults on our Constitution are limited to Democrats striking the Second Amendment, there is an equally strong move from some congressional Republicans to wipe away the First Amendment.
Second Amendment
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
The other half of the Congress, on average, is quite capable and anxious to defend the Second Amendment, and that is good. After all, our founding fathers envisioned a well-armed populace as the ultimate check on government tyranny. If some future legislators and presidents had designs on limiting our divinely endowed liberties, our founders believed the Second would hold such impulses in check.
Second Amendment
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
That modern groups have picked pieces of the Constitution to hold in such high regard, while so casually dismissing the other, is rather strange. Of course, it is no stranger than the two groups joining forces to undermine both the First and Second amendments. I always find this odd, for I would have assumed each Member took seriously his solemn oath to defend the entirety of the Constitution and its underlying principles; not just when convenient, but always.
Second Amendment
Taking the Next Step
29 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 29 November 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
During this year I also introduced bills to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. Our founding fathers understood that the right to keep and bear arms was the bedrock upon which all other rights were rested, a sort of insurance plan against an intrusive and abusive federal police state, my legislation would restore our Republic to those founding principles in this crucial policy area as well.
Second Amendment
Cosponsored Bills
20 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Some of the bills I have cosponsored deal with topics on which I have already introduced legislation. These include measures dealing with second amendment rights protection, restriction of funding to the United Nations and "Sense of Congress resolutions" regarding executive orders and privacy issues. Often times, I cosponsor a bill that is not necessarily drafted in such a fashion that I believe will really get at the heart of the problem it is intended to address. Nonetheless, I decide to cosponsor such measures, as long as they take steps in the right direction. Additionally, if the issue is something that I see as significant to maintaining our liberty and restoring our Republic, I will also craft a bill that I think more directly addresses the central problem. In this way, I can lend support to other Members who are moving in the right direction while also advocating a more specific, and often times more significant, remedy to the problem.
Second Amendment
The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police
31 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
ATF gets more than $730 million dollars for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $166 million over its 2000 budget. Why the increase? The administration wants the agency to hire 600 new federal police officers to enforce ever-expanding gun laws. Never mind the obvious failures of gun control legislation and the clear Second Amendment prohibition against such laws. The politicians in Washington are determined to slowly abolish gun rights, and they are determined to use federal police to accomplish the task.
Second Amendment
Imperial Transportation Bureaucrat Says Yes to Lavish Offices, No to Armed Pilots
24 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 24 June 2002 verse 10 ... Cached
A new armed pilots bill recently passed in the Aviation subcommittee, and may see a vote later this year. While I support this bill, which essentially makes pilots federal deputies, my own legislation is more direct. My bill simply allows the airlines and pilots to decide for themselves whether to allow guns in the cockpit. This approach respects both the Second amendment and the private property rights of the airlines. While no amount of security can guarantee another terrorist won’t again board an aircraft with a weapon, Congress can make sure pilots are not left defenseless by passing a direct armed pilots bill and overseeing its immediate implementation.
Second Amendment
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified “assault rifles” outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.
Second Amendment
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
More importantly, however, 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.
Second Amendment
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
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:
Second Amendment
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
“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?”
Second Amendment
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France! Meanwhile, this past June the UN held a conference with the silly title “Week of Action against Small Arms.”
Second Amendment
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
Second Amendment
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
It’s not hard to see the grave danger posed by this new trend. Anti-gun judges could cite restrictions on gun ownership in other countries approvingly when disregarding our Second amendment. Hate speech laws in other nations could be used as authority to weaken the First amendment. Our wholly domestic tax, labor, environmental, and family laws could be influenced by United Nations edicts, foreign court judgments, and international treaties which have not been ratified by the United States.
Second Amendment
Torture, War, and Presidential Powers
14 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.
Second Amendment
Ignoring Reality in Iraq
13 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that “times have changed since the Constitution was written”- in fact, that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution- limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs- has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.
Second Amendment
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
Second Amendment
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
Second Amendment
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings 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 that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.
Second Amendment
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
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.
Second Amendment
The Original Foreign Policy
18 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
Second Amendment
Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty
25 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
The much-vaunted Senate “compromise” on immigration is a compromise alright: a compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a compromise of the Second Amendment. That anyone in Washington believes this is a credible approach to solving our immigration crisis suggests just how out of touch our political elites really are.
Second Amendment
Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty
25 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
According to the pro-Second Amendment Gun Owners of America, the legislation also makes it easier to target gun dealers for prosecution. Even gun clubs could find themselves targeted under this immigration reform legislation.
Second Amendment
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 1 ... Cached
Second Amendment Battle in DC
Second Amendment
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
As a United States Congressman, I take my oath to uphold all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very seriously. Unfortunately, too many in Washington DC believe they can pick-and-choose which provisions of the constitution they can uphold. For example, many politicians, judges, and bureaucrats believe they have the power to disregard our right to own guns, even though the second amendment explicitly guarantees the people's right to "keep and bear arms."
Second Amendment
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Ironically, one of the most draconian gun laws in the nation is in the nation's capital. Banning guns did not make DC safer. In fact crime in DC rose after the gun ban went into place! Fortunately, last year, a federal court struck down DC's gun ban in the case of DC v. Heller. This is the first time in years a court found a gun control law violated the second amendment. However, victory is not secured. The city of DC has appealed and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. If the lower court's decision is upheld, law abiding citizens should once again be allowed to defend themselves in DC and I would expect it to become a much safer city. It would also set a very positive precedent that could affect gun laws all over the country.
Second Amendment
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.