I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:
Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.
Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.
So you're "committed to strictly enforcing" this?
And this?
And this?
And this?
And...
You wouldn't care to square any of that with this, would you?
Tell me something, Fred, you wouldn't be interested in responding to this, would you?
I know, I know: "Ron Paul can't win and this'll just help Hillary. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Politics is the art of compromise."
How's that working out for us?