The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: Exceptions
Exceptions
I'm sure he feels there should be special exceptions:
If you are old and feeble.
If you express views that some crazy gun-people might disagree with.
If you're a "lawmaker."
He should just defend the 2nd Amendment which allows guns for:
Protecting oneself if you're young and female--outnumbered, weak, small, being attacked, have no alternative, for crime prevention, a clothing accessory, hunting, protection of others, as an equalizer (individuals or groups), or just because and any other reason as long as you don't prove to be someone who misuses a gun to violate someone else's rights.
I'm not sure why he has any greater need for a gun than someone living in Oakland, Chicago, or New York. The principle's the same: we have a right to self-defense.
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/