Comments on: Highlights of the Ron Paul speech at Iowa straw poll

By: eric_t12

eric_t12 — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:28:13 +0000

At least using the second amendment i would be able to protect myself, and if necessary other passengers.

its about responsibility one takes when carrying a firearm, if i’m willing to go to the sherriff and ask them to carry a firearm concealed why would i do anything crazy with it? obviously i’ve thought about it a little while.

But yes, RP only meant they should hav ea choice. right now the .GOV makes the choice for you, and so far it hasn’t worked well at all… 9/11 showed who cares about self-defense (not the .gov) and now we can’t even carry 3.1 ounces of toothpaste… pathetic.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:53:36 +0000

This may sound fringe or scary but bear with me.

I think we need to return to a society that is accustomed to being armed. Not only does the Second Amendment allow everyone to protect themselves in the case of imminent attack, but it would just be like carrying a cell phone or credit card. Each item has a purpose. If terrorists or bank robbers or muggers or anyone that commits a crime knows the whole country is armed and knows how to shoot their weapon are they really going to take the chance on doing their dastardly deed? I doubt it. Even crazies like the Virginia Tech madman would be taken out long before 33 people ended up dead. At most I say he kills 5 people before someone kills him. It doesn’t help those 5 but it helps the other 27 he killed. I’ll take those odds when some people are just nuts. I don’t think it is enough to have some people carry concealed weapons. Regular holsters like police have is a much better deterrent. Also, ending the oppressive and expensive war on drugs would do a lot to lower gun violence numbers. Who is going to mess with a violent drug dealer when they could walk into Bob’s Narcatopia and buy their habit just like cigarettes or beer? We are too programmed to be passive. We need to be vigilant. I don’t even own a gun now because I couldn’t take it out of my closet safe. What’s the point? Yet, a burglar could come into my house and I’d be incapacitated before remembering the combination. That’s just stupid.

By: Donna

Donna — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:05:53 +0000

If the airplane and passengers are being threatened, the pilots could simply initiate a temporary sleeping gas for all the passengers and terrorists. Everyone takes a nap. The airplane returns safely. Problem is solved!

By: Hank Whitmore

Hank Whitmore — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:17:30 +0000

I’m a retired American Airlines Pilot. I was still working when the events of 9/11 occurred. At that time pilots were trained not to resist. Now that I’m just a fellow passenger I would feel much more at ease if the crew were armed and any passenger who had a license to carry a concealed firearm were so armed while on board given the same restriction that all armed individuals have to have it concealed and not be served alcohol. Unfortunately many people are so conditioned by the influence of big government they have no faith in either themselves or God for protection.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:40:44 +0000

Paul made a crappy speech. He could have done much better.

By: GO RON GO

GO RON GO — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:59:53 +0000

FOX is reporting there were “problems” with the Diebold machines, possibly due to “humidity.”

Geraldo has not mentioned Ron Paul ONCE.

By: goldenequity

goldenequity — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:36:36 +0000

Ok….there are 2 planes in front of you that you can choose to board. Plane A has a pilot with no pistol to protect his passangers. Plane B has a Pilot trained in small arms, goes to a pistol range 3 times a month to practice, and is packing the weapon on board the flight “just in case” someone slips thru the now famous “Airport Security”.
Which plane would you prefer to board on? Gimme a break….the purpose of the 2nd ammendment is custom made for a “local” (and simple) solution that we now throw billions of dollars at in “hopes” that our government will protect us.
Ron’s solutions always make so much sense to me.
Here’s another one,
He proposed and submitted to Congress in OCTOBER 2001! a bill that Congress should issue a Letter of Marque and reprisal against and naming Osama Bin Laden and Al Queida. It is a constitutionally authorized power given to congress to simply put a BOUNTY for the kill or capture of an enemy. No….too simple….. instead of just offering a 2,3,5 Billion dollar bounty to exact vengeance upon the people who actually DID 911…..we go to war with Iraq and spend 500 billion annually.

Ron Paul’s intellect and common sense is what I’ve been looking for in a candidate for EVER!

Do your OWN homework.

NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

By: Jose Castillo

Jose Castillo — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:21:19 +0000

Paul has never stated he would allow passengers to carry weapons/guns on planes. He stated only PILOTS and trained CREW !!!

As for the national id card, what is “proposed” about it? The real id act is to take effect in May of 2008. Four (4) states have passed laws against it! http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198900558

Everyone, please take the time to view this video, you will be shocked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

By: VT

VT — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:48:00 +0000

I watched Ron Paul speak in Pittsburgh. In Pittsburgh, he said that pilots should be allowed to carry protection, too. He never mentioned that passengers should carry arms on planes.
He felt that anyone wishing to take over a plane that knew there were guns on the other side of the door would most likely think twice. I agree.

By: Rich

Rich — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:12:00 +0000

“Either way, piliots with guns is a dangerous and stupid idea. Why not just have better security on the flight? Remember, the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters not guns. ”

Yeah, but the hijackers would have thought twice, knowing they could have been walking into a plane full of people packing heat. Legally owned guns are not problem and have always constituted a ridiculously small percentage of handgun and other firearm-related deaths in this country. I tire of the philosophy of “more guns = more crime”. It’s just not true. Google Kennesaw, Georgia, and see how mandatory gun ownership has caused the murder-free crime rate to plummet in the past 25 years.

Liberal douche.

By: Phinnous

Phinnous — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:13:59 +0000

Ron Paul represents true conservatism, and this should go to show that the current crop of republicans who claim to be conservative aren’t by example of their actions. If people only stick to the most important and serious issues of the day, then any logical, rational person would vote for Ron Paul even if they disagree with some of the fringe issues. Fry the big fish first, then worry about whether or not the Madagascar three toed tree frog has viable habitat… Don’t let side issues distract from the important ones.

By: badmedia

badmedia — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:03:10 +0000

Jeff - it would be up to the airline, and you would have a choice of which airlines to fly on - ones that had armed pilots, and ones that didn’t. He isn’t trying to force airlines to do it, only for it to be allowed as an option. I see nothing wrong with that, but I think locked and secure cockpits is more important.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:01:41 +0000

Please don’t say things that he is not saying…..It’s the PILOTS that should be carrying guns. His point is that the airline itself should be regulating guns on the airoplanes, NOT the federal government.

By: Jason Easley

Jason Easley — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:57:46 +0000

Dr. Paul didn’t say only pilots. He just said the Second Amendment. Either way, piliots with guns is a dangerous and stupid idea. Why not just have better security on the flight? Remember, the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters not guns.

By: Jason Easley

Jason Easley — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:55:37 +0000

The GOP will

(A). Never adopt the flat tax.

(B). Adopt a non interventionist foreign policy.

(C). Seriously shrink the size of government.

Maybe you haven’t been paying attention to the GOP for the past 20 years?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:53:35 +0000

Pilots allowed to carry weapons to protect the aircraft. Stupid !

By: Darren

Darren — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:48:30 +0000

Which of his views are “out of step” with the Republican Party???
-Small government
-Following the Bill of Rights
-Pro-life
-Non-interventionist foreign policy
-Lower (no) income tax
Sounds exactly Repulican to me.

By: Brent

Brent — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:08:28 +0000

“He advocated allowing passengers to carry guns on planes.”

Try pilots. Pilots were not allowed to carry handguns to protect themselves and the passengers.