Paul vows to fight gun limits

Speaking in Frankfort, he opposes change by executive order

By Ryan Quinn, Published:

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul told a packed room Wednesday in the Capital Plaza Hotel that he would oppose any effort by President Barack Obama to “usurp the Second Amendment” through executive order.

“I would fight that with every bone in my body,” Paul, R-Ky., told members of the Frankfort Rotary Club.

Obama signed 23 executive orders Wednesday in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., massacre and other recent shootings. He also said he planned to push for legislation to ban assault weapons, limit high-capacity magazines and expand background checks.

The orders include addressing legal barriers to state background checks and clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes.

Paul said he had not yet read the orders and would only oppose them if they were efforts to create new laws without the approval of Congress – something he said would be “abhorrent to the Constitution.”

He stressed a strict reading of the Second Amendment.

“It says you have the right to bear arms,” Paul said. “It doesn’t say you have the right to bear arms that shoot five bullets and not six bullets.”

Paul said certain gun control restrictions could be permissible, but he said limitations would increase prices, allowing the rich to buy guns to defend themselves but not the poor. He said he didn’t think armed guards were necessary at every elementary school but said he would feel safer if principals and teachers had concealed weapons.

“We’re still going to have horrible tragedies…but we have a lot of tragedies going on, and I don’t think we should give up our rights from our Second Amendment,” he said.

BENGHAZI ATTACKS

After his remarks and audience questions, Paul, who is joining the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The State Journal he wants someone to take responsibility for the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify before the committee next week.

“I think it was inexcusable to send our diplomats into a war zone without adequate security,” he said of the attacks that killed four Americans, including an ambassador.

“And whoever made that decision should never, ever be in a position to make that decision again, and I want to know if she’s going to accept responsibility,” he added.

TAXES AND SPENDING

Paul discussed myriad other issues, mainly focusing on reducing government spending, which he said could lead to the “destruction of the currency or even of the country.”

He said he was opposed to raising the federal debt ceiling unless the move is accompanied by a balanced budget amendment.

He spoke extensively against raising taxes on the wealthy.

Congress recently allowed taxes to increase on the nation’s top earners as part of the fiscal cliff deal.

Paul pointed out that the country’s top earners pay a large portion of the nation’s income tax.

“We have a progressive income tax,” he said, adding he believes lowering rates on the rich will boost the economy and actually raise more revenue. He called the recent calls for tax increases on the rich “the politics of envy.”

He also advocated lowering corporate income taxes and several measures to lower Social Security and Medicare costs. He expressed support for raising the full retirement age – currently 67 for people born in 1960 or later – to 70 over the next two decades.

OBAMA'S EFFORTS

He said that the Affordable Care Act will be “a bigger disaster than you could have ever imagined,” one that would bankrupt states and persuade more businesses to dump their employees on Medicaid.

The senator said the Obama administration has also gone “off the deep end” when it comes to coal industry regulations.

“There may not be a coal industry in four years, or what’s left will be sent to foreign countries with no pollution controls,” he said.

CRITICISM FOR HIS FELLOW REPUBLICANS

Paul, who has libertarian leanings, also discussed several distinctions between his views and those of his fellow Republicans.

He criticized Republicans for joining Democrats in requesting more money for Hurricane Sandy relief. The House of Representatives passed a more than $50 billion relief bill Tuesday night.

Paul said there is no money available for the relief, and instead of borrowing more, the U.S. should cut foreign aid to fund assistance for storm victims.

He said he opposes No Child Left Behind and supports legalizing hemp in Kentucky, saying it could be used for paper, fuel, clothing and soap. He said, despite what some opponents claim, it should be easy to distinguish between marijuana and hemp, two closely related plants.

“I’m hoping law enforcement will reassess their opposition,” he said.

The senator said he is willing to work with the president in ending the Afghanistan War, citing the fact that American soldiers are being killed by the Afghans they are training.

“We’ve lost our purpose, and we’re also out of money,” he said. He said Republicans also needed to consider military cuts.

Paul said the Republican Party is in danger of becoming a minority party, and it needs to appeal more to blacks and Hispanics. He said he supports allowing the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain as long as they work and the border with Mexico is first secured.

Paul, who was elected to the Senate in 2010, said he will “seriously entertain” running for president but won’t make the decision for another two years.

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • “It says you have the right to bear arms,” Paul said. “It doesn’t say you have the right to bear arms that shoot five bullets and not six bullets.” (coincidentally written at a time when a musket could only fire 1 bullet as many times in a certain amount of time that one could tear open a pouch containing gun powder. load your musket barrel with the explosive material, load a bullet or pellet into the musket and use a rod to compress it down to the firing mechanism) Using Paul's own strict reliance of the second amendment verbatim I would like to ask the senator then, if we citizens of the U.S.ofA also have the right to bear nuclear arms? There is no mention of this in a strict reading of the second amendment. Mr Senator, do you believe every Kentuckian should have access to their own Nuclear arsenal? “I would fight that with every bone in my body,” Paul, R-Ky., told members of the Frankfort Rotary Club. Will you also, Senator, take full responsibility for every death that takes place with a weapon that could have prevented with the POTUS' executive orders? For I do not see how you can oppose one thing and not accept the consequences of the affects of your actions in opposition to them.

  • "... putting guns in schools just make schools less safe, not more." I do not agree with this statement, but do agree with everything else that ItJustNeededSayin writes. I think that it would have to help some which is why the president's proposal includes federal assistance for some of those schools who want to try. But it is important to understand that self-defense does NOT begin at the moment of conflict. The President has offered a broad holistic approach in his latest proposal that was the result of VP Biden's meeting with nearly 230 different groups (not just individuals) and compiling a common sense approach to this problem. Even if this proposal is fully implemented, despite the Republicans vows to support their mac-daddy arms and munitions industries over the well-being of their constituents, then the proposals still would not be able to thwart every attempt. These mass murders are crafty but limiting their access to super weapons makes it harder to accomplish their sick goals. But even if they only prevented one child from being slaughtered, wouldn't it be worth the minor inconvenience that the measures may present to some gun owners? What is a small child (that isn't your own) worth to you guys who are beating the NRA drum so loudly? How can you so cavalierly dismiss that child's worth?

  • And the Secret Service would tell you that the way they solve the problem today is by having a lot of people involved in screening, scanning, investigating, and questioning anyone that gets anywhere near the President. If there was a way to defend against someone with body armor and assault rifles on a budget of local schools, they'd already be doing it. There are NO cheap or easy solutions to defend public schools (or malls, or movie theaters), but there are ways to limit the damage an attacker can do. Rent-a-cops aren't the answer -- there was news story today about a rent-a-cop in an school that left his handgun in the boy's bathroom. Pretty much sums up what I've said from the time LaPierre proposed putting guards in all our schools -- putting guns in schools just make schools less safe, not more.

  • ItJustNeededSayin: If you would read my post more carefully, I was calling for the Secret Service to get involved in CONSULTING on ways to make schools safer, not using agents in schools.

  • "WE THE CITIZENS, NEEDS TO TAKE OUR GOVERNMENT BACK & THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO HAVE A WELL ARMED & WELL REGULATED MILITIA OF CITIZENS." ER ah, the only way to take our government back is to vote the Teabagging obstructionist scoundrels out! We are going the wrong way with putting people in office like Rand Paul and Andy Barr, much less Mitch McConnell. Kentuckians get the government that they deserve. AND, if you think that "we" (don't include us sane people in your succession and assassination of our leaders schemes!) are going to overthrow the US government with what amounts to cap pistols in comparison to the military's weapons, those derogatory descriptive adjectives used by others below may not be missing the mark by much! ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I think that it is amazing that some folks are STILL saying that this amounts to taking everybodies' guns away...that is insane.

  • "It's the new dems party line interpretation. Militia replaced by US military and National Guard... nobody else needs guns... ("completely") disarm the people. Clear the way for a nice little dictatorship." The President's (or anyone else in a position of authority) proposal certainly does not include anything about completely disarming the people. That is hardly the "new dems party line interpretation", 'cept maybe on FAUX News or Rush Limpbaugh.

  • bodeen... They have you hook, line, and sinker'ed! Just like the blind followers and repeaters of the NRA and conservative movement back in 1994! Preaching and repeating the same scare tactics! This will lead to more, run and buy your guns! They are going to take them away, run and buy your guns! We need to be prepared to over throw the government, run and buy your guns! United States is about to collapse with this administration, run and buy your guns! Everything they tell you leads to BUYING more guns, never leads to doing right and electing someone who will do right! The 1994 AWB didn't lead to more laws and less freedoms, so why will it now? The AWB was allowed to sunset in September of 2004 and nobody said a word, why? It’s about making money! Like I said earlier in a few posts, they (republicans and democrats) will pass a few trivial regulations, make it look like they care, both will fight each other’s plan, the passed regulations will not hurt the potential sales of guns and will actually make it possible for cronies to make money (data base programs, storage and facilities for the data bases, potential new data base machines on site at gun shows, etc...) and the regulations will have a sunset date in them!

  • Ahhh. The old “slippery slope” argument. So, we can’t have any limits on weapons ownership because even reasonable limits will inevitably lead to a complete ban of all weapons. This is one of the favorite memes of the Gun and Ammunition Manufactures Lobby (NRA). They use this to instill fear into the populous in order to increase the sales of their products. They propose not having any regulations or limits on any weapons sales (which, of course would be good for their business). If you follow their logic, everyone should be able to go to Wal-Mart and buy a grenade launcher, surface-to-air missile, or land mines to place around the perimeter of their property to keep out trespassers. I think we could all agree that allowing people to have those types of weapons are overkill (so to speak), but that’s what the public-relations arm of the gun lobby wants, and have sent LaPierre out as their spokesperson to propose. There have to be logical limits on what types of weapons that are reasonable for a “law abiding” person to own to protect their home, and a military grade urban warfare assault rifle with a hundred rounds isn’t needed by anyone to protect their home (unless they’re up to no-good in the first place and are anticipating the SWAT team breaking down their door and arresting them).

  • Well said, bodeen.

  • I know dang well what the president did but here is where the problem is at, it will lead to more gun rights taken away & as far as taken all the guns away & that will stop the shootings, that is garbage because the stupid criminal will always get guns one way or another & only the law abiding citizens will be left without a means to protect themselves. I am all for limits on certain guns & but this will only lead to more & more till it will be a crime to have one & do you think a criminal will let that stop them. I hope people aren't niave enough to think that good O'le US of A will never have the same problems that other countries has always had & always will, until the citizens has had enough & TAKES UP THEIR ARMS & OVERTHROW THE LEADERS! NOBODY KNOWS WHAT OR WHEN THE TIPPING POINT WILL BE BUT IF & WHEN IT HAPPENS, WE HAD BETTER BE IN A POSITION TO PUT A STOP TO IT. I personally think having 24/7/365 news coverage does more harm than good & entices the REAL IDIOTS to up the last one.

  • bodeen... There is a problem with your first 2 sentences... Take them all away & more shootings will happen because they will be less of a counter threat... If they are all taken away then there are no guns to shoot! Lol! Look, the President has not proposed anything to take away your guns, ban all guns, or even make it a crime to have a gun, don't listen to the conservative talk radio people and get all bent out of shape until you research it first. You went off the deep end about the nation going into turmoil and storming the government and that rubs people the wrong way. Stop, think, research, then post your opinion!

  • Paul is a disgrace

  • Everybody is entitled to their own opinion whether it is right or wrong. These boards are meant just for people to express their opinions without being called idiots.I don't agree with lots of them & a lot I do but I'm not niave enough to think that I am always right & everybody that disagrees with me is an Idiot. I have been burned by the best of these posters but at no time did I harbor any ill wishes towards anybody for putting me in my place because they did it with respect & class. Come on folks!

  • Rand Paul is an IDIOT! Maybe he should just go home and try to teach his own children some morals and respect for the law! Oh wait! We aren't supposed to talk about his children, right? We should 'respect their privacy' when his kid gets arrested for underage drinking.... How STUPID are the voters of KY to elect this dolt?

  • Hugh_Heckler is an idiot. There is a Secret Service detail of several hundred agents tasked to protect the President and his family. Does Hugh_Heckler expect the government to hire a couple hundred security staff to protect every school in the nation? It’s already been projected to cost over a Billion dollars a year to just have ONE security at each school. Also, the school in Sandy Hook was in daytime lock-down mode – the doors were locked, but the attacker used his weapons to shoot his way through the doors to the school. I feel sorry for the tree that’s wasting it’s time producing oxygen for this moron to breath.

  • I have not heard even one person from this administration say anything about taking away everyones guns. Just the military style arms that have no other use but to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. I think some people are just very paranoid because of who sits in the white house now.

  • " I really believe they want to turn against the government and this president and start a civil war" .......................................................................................... What do you think we would have on our hands if the government decides to attempt to confiscate the people's weapons and further oppress them into submission?

  • Senator Paul is on the wrong side of the gun violence issue, in my opinion. Time will tell.

  • This man is a nut ..... these people think more of their **** guns than they do their children's safety. Yes everyone should be able to protect themselves. But these people just keep beating those civil war drums. I really believe they want to turn against the government and this president and start a civil war. I can't get over these people in Congress that do not want to provide relief money to those effected by the recent disasters. Those people have paid into the system with tax money and it should not even be questioned whether or not they get relief from the government. He is an embarrassment to all the people of Kentucky along with his buddy Mitch McConnell.

  • Taking away guns woudn't stop any school shootings or mass shootings. Take them all away & more shootings will happen because they will be less of a counter threat. The second amendment reference to a well regulated militia was in reference to citizens right to bear arms, PERIOD! Having national guards or armies doesn't affect any of that because a man still needs the means to quickly & safely defend his life & property. All it takes is a few misguided leaders to send this nation in turmoil & it is very possible that a situation can happen that WE THE CITIZENS, NEEDS TO TAKE OUR GOVERNMENT BACK & THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO HAVE A WELL ARMED & WELL REGULATED MILITIA OF CITIZENS.

  • It is already permissible in Kentucky for teachers to carry guns--if they have permission from the school board. Am I wrong to expect a senator to know our laws? Did his aide not have time to fact-fetch for him? Oh, that's right, he's not even from Kentucky. That would explain why he doesn't know our laws!!

  • How is it they can keep the president safe from snipers at distances of over a mile away at ALL TIMES but they can't keep our kids safe when they are crammed into one building? The government would like the sheep to believe that not only would these bans would be effective, but that they are our only recourse. Sorry, I'm not taking the bait. What is wrong with metal scanners coming into schools and locked doors during the day? Why doesn't the president order security experts to give ideas on how to best do this? since he is absorbing so much input on the issue!? The Secret Service is not only on the federal payroll, but they are experts in keeping people safe. Hmmm. Am I the only one seeing the problem (and the solution) here?

  • George Bush did more to destroy American's civil liberties and freedom than all other Presidents before and after put together. His reign was so close to being an outright dictatorship that he was often referred to as “King George”. He would just out-rightly ignore his citizenry’s right to privacy, right to representation, and right to due process – and used the blood of those killed on 9/11 to instill fear into the populous in order to control them. He had programs established to have Postal Workers and other public employees to spy on American citizens. He ordered warrantless wiretaps of American citizens – even after the Supreme Court said it was illegal. He shipped American citizens off-shore so that he would not be bound by US laws in detaining and torturing them. He appointed Cabinet members and ambassadors without Congress’ consent. Ever wonder why he has stayed away from the public eye after he left office? It’s because if he talks about the things he did, he’d be tried for treason against his country and face charges in international courts for the crimes he committed elseware in the world.

  • It's the new dems party line interpretation. Militia replaced by US military and National Guard... nobody else needs guns... disarm the people. Clear the way for a nice little dictatorship. US military and National Guard have to defend what the government says. Problem is when government gets out of control with this little twist on the interpretation of the second amendment, you have no right to form a militia to counteract. You don't even have the guns to arm them. Hey, I agree, people shouldn't have military style rapid fire multi-shot guns... but completely disarm? What's next? Take away bows and arrows. I know a few kids in competitive archery who'd be very unhappy. You people need to start thinking about what is all being taken away lately. Interesting how willingly Americans nowadays hand over their freedoms in turn for a false sense of security. Oh, well, some 236 years since they called for Independence was a good run.

  • An interesting interpretation, ItJustNeededSayin. If there's no militia, per se, then the militia doesn't need arms.

  • Paul should start a new party: the Obstructionists. He and his Tea Party Obstructionists are doing more to harm (and arm) this country than anything else in D.C.

  • Keep and bear arms...where does Senator Paul draw the line here for what "arms" constitutes? At full-on machine guns? Rocket powered grenades? Scud missiles? Actually, it has all been interpreted FOR the Senator from KY by the SCOTUS, with that communist Justice Scallia writing the majority opinion. Even if the President gets everything that he proposed to day, it really isn't going to change anything for any law abiding collector, enthusiast, hunter, sportsman or one who is defending themselves.

  • If Representative Paul wants to stress a “strict reading of the Second Amendment”, then he should at least read it first. It clearly states that a “well regulated militia” has the right to keep and bear Arms. That’s a very clear reference to the Minutemen and other State Militia of the period, which have been subsequently replaced by the US Military and National Guard. Since the first part of that Amendment no longer exists (there is no longer a “well regulated militia”), the second part of the Amendment (the right of that militia to bear Arms) is null and void. There you go, Mr. Paul. I expect you to keep your word and stress that “strict reading of the Second Amendment”, and not a loose “interpretation” of the Amendment that the Tea Party wishes to impose on the rest of us.

  • There are guns made for hunting. There are guns made for target shooting. There are guns made for home protection, like the two I have. Then there are guns made for war. Guns used in war like the Bushmaster .233 should be taken off the market. PERIOD! Remember the great Ronald Regan signed a law restricting certain types of firearms. Don't feed on the fear that has been ramped since Obama got elected for his first term. No agenda exist to take away firearms from citizens. There has been no written evidence produced that any governmental agency wants to take away your guns. NRA wants you to have fear so you stay a member or join up. Which only means more money in the pockets for the ones that control the NRA. I'm 100% in support of the 2nd Amendment but feel others site the 2nd Amendment in very very broad terms. Read the polls. The vast majority of Americans want stricter gun laws. Polls don't lie. just ask Mitt. Those who disagree are a small minority and won't win on this issue. I'm also 110% believer in the United States Declaration of Independence. I love it where it states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Killers with guns take away those rights of the person(s) they killed. Something needs to be done to control the violent use of guns and I'm glad to see certain folks in power taken the steps to do it.

  • I'd say this guy has flipped his poorly fitted wig on this one. According to Rand, we all should be able to buy grenades and rocket launchers at the local Wally World. Of course, this stuff will play big around here with the Bubbah's. The best way to stop a BAD guy with a gun is a GOOD guy in the White House with a pen.

  • Figures Paul would hate a peaceful society when he has a history of having campaign workers kicking opposing campign workers in the head! Yesseree that is Paul for you, he cannot take the time to google the 2nd amendment. Guess that shows us the correct guy is in the white house.