Ron Paul is owed a lot of credit. The former congressman was speaking about a need to return to the Constitution when the GOP was awash in a sea of moderate RINO-ism. The doctor-turned-congressman from Texas was one of the most-vocal proponents of liberty in the years prior to the Tea Party revolution that brought many leaders like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to the forefront of American politics.
However, Dr. Paul’s positions have largely fallen out of favor and been replaced by a more-realistic conservative agenda. Tea Party lawmakers and leaders largely echo Dr. Paul’s sentiments regarding the Constitution, but maintain a more-realistic position regarding foreign policy.
While zealous isolationism may seem attractive to an idealist, the fact remains that America and her interests are inextricably linked to global endeavors and a prompt removal from the world stage would lead to chaos both domestically and abroad.
Still, Paul insists that America is obliged to retreat into isolationism.
Recently, when asked about gun control efforts, Dr. Paul amazingly claimed to support gun control efforts, then bumpily pivoted to foreign policy, then transitioned once more to gun control and an ambiguous support of the Second Amendment.
On Wednesday, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked about Democrat efforts to implement anti-Second Amendment legislation.
Paul posited that the real danger was guns in the Middle East. He replied,
Well, I still believe in the Constitution, and I believe in the Second Amendment, but I’m for gun control. Where the real killing’s going on is our guns in our military going overseas and bombing and killing, starting wars that aren’t necessary, and selling weapons. We’re selling—We’re putting weapons in the hands of ISIS, you know, in Syria. Those are the real guns of war that we should be dealing with, and of course, if we’re really worried about guns on the streets, why has it been totally ignored—a lot more people are dying in our inner cities.
Crime on weekends is just out of control, so we need more, you know, police activity to try to protect some people, but property management, that is, preventing the rights of an individual to own a piece of property, whether it’s a knife or a gun, is protected, and that shouldn’t be the issue. I do not think it will achieve anything, and since I’m one that’s very much in favor of non-aggression and violence, I would be for it if I thought it reduced the violence. But it will not, and therefore I will defend the Second Amendment.
There are few absolutes in life… but there are some: nothing is as satisfying after a hot day of yard work like an ice cold beer, he who supports Bernie or Hillary are for the legalization of theft and one cannot be “for the Second Amendment” and “for gun control” simultaneously.
The Second Amendment is a remarkably brief constitutional right that clarifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Even a little infringement is still an infringement. Period. One must be either for the Second Amendment or for gun control. There is nothing in between.
Further, I’m not sure I followed Dr. Paul’s line of “logic.” Yes, the Middle East is a quagmire or mismanagement and ISIS grows strength from the Obama Administration’s horrid mismanagement of the war on terror.
However, the imposition of this talking point was not only conspicuously abrupt, but it didn’t really offer much in the way of specifics.
That he returned to gun control at the end and voiced support for “non-aggression,” the Second Amendment and gun control seems to indicate a flailing narrative that doesn’t quite link-up.
Dr. Paul is the Betamax of conservatism; he may have played an important role in the beginning of a new idea, but has since been rendered obsolete.