Deconstructing America's Savior - Part 6

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the sixth in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

Previous posts in the series:

1. An introduction to Ron Paul's policy platform.
2. Ron Paul on Debt and Taxes.
3. Ron Paul on American Independence and Sovereignty.
4. Ron Paul on War and Foreign Policy.
5. Ron Paul on Life and Liberty.

This time, let's pick apart his policy statement regarding The Second Amendment:

I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

• H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
• H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
• H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
• H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

Once again, Ron Paul brings out the UN boogeyman. As I've said before, the UN is neither so dangerous, nor so useless as Paul suggests. But his objection to the UN doesn't really change my analysis of the underlying issue here, so I'll let it pass...

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.

What he said. Seriously, I can't find any fault in Ron Paul's stance on this issue. The only criticism I can make here is to point out that he repeatedly refers to legislation that he has "introduced". I'm unaware of any legislation that Ron Paul has successfully pushed through to become law (I haven't looked very hard, so it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking something). This just one more indicator that suggests Paul is more concerned with remaining true to his principles than he is with achieving tangible results.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to Social Security.