search
top

Gun Rights Police Conference

Dave Hardy and Clayton Cramer were in attendance and are blogging about it.  Clayton also talks about some scary encounters with Ron Paul supporters.  I’ll admit,  don’t really get the cult of Ron Paul either.  Granted, the guy is great on the gun issue, but I think hugging him is actually going a bit overboard.

I don’t like any politician that much.

14 Responses to “Gun Rights Police Conference”

  1. Jadegold says:

    Dave Hardy can be discounted because he lauds John Lott. In particular, Hardy fawns all over Lott’s spurious claim that the DC homicide rate is higher than Baghdad’s. Lott’s claim has already been debunked numerous times.

  2. Sebastian says:

    I’m skeptical of any number that’s coming out of Iraq, but has it really been debunked, or has it only been debunked in your head? :) Got something that debunks it?

  3. Jadegold says:

    Essentially, it’s been debunked since 2003-4, when Lott was flacking it. Lott initially took Don Rumsfeld’s casualty numbers from Baghdad (which had no basis in reality). He then took the poulations of Baghdad and DC and extrapolated. Unfortunately, he used just DC’s population while using Baghdad’s and Baghdad’s surrounding areas. IOW, he used bogus Baghdad homicide figures (undercounted) while using an overestimated population figure for Baghdad.

  4. The Duck says:

    I thought the GRPC was a good event, it could have used more meat, on some of the seminars.
    Next year it will be in Arizona.

    But if you have an interest in Human Rights, & it’s in your area you should attend. For a free event, they really gave us alot of material to work with, books etc..

  5. Alcibiades McZombie says:

    If Ron Paul is a cult leader, then Barrack Obama is like Thulsa Doom. He can make his followers jump off cliffs.

  6. gattsuru says:

    Barrack Obama is like Thulsa Doom. He can make his followers jump off cliffs.

    And everybody wins!

  7. BadIdeaGuy says:

    JadeGold’s pretty well been debunked everywhere he/she has trolled in the past.

  8. Mr. Craymer has a problem that Ron Paul newsletters alleged that lobbyists for Israeli interests attempted to influence Representatives (they would hardly be doing their job if they failed to do so) and attempts to stretch that into the claim that “I begin to sense something about two steps back from Jews are running the world.”

    There are some people who have an elevated concern that the cheerleaders for the Israeli government have a negative influence on the US government. Ron Paul’s non-interventionist position places it at odds to *any* foreign government looking to influence the US government policy (regardless of how reasonable a justification). It is not particularly surprising that some supporters are dialed to red line about Israeli influence.

    To quote Mr. Craymer: Another aspect that disturbed me was the crowd of Ron Paul supporters who suddenly showed up for his speech (but who had not been at the GRPC). There were signs that declared, “Ron Paul Will Save America.” When Ron Paul arrived, there was a frightening intensity to the chanting, “Ron Paul! Ron Paul!”

    Take the “suddenly” out of it and it sounds quite a bit less disturbing (when does Mr. Craymer think Ron Paul supporters would show up?) As for frightening intensity, there are plenty of citizens out there that have been overtaxed, overregulated and socially engineered to fuel plenty of chanting at the opportunity to have a realistic opportunity to elect an advocate of limited government to the office of president.

    As for fanaticism, pare the word down to its root and you get “fan”. If Ron Paul has some enthusiastic fans, I am pleased to hear it.

    Mr. Craymer also mentions “disturbing signs of a messianic following”. Strip that phrase of it’s negative or religious connotations and use the definition “Relating to any popular or inspirational leader, especially a liberator” and hey – that does seem to apply to Ron Paul doesn’t it?

  9. “Mr. Craymer has a problem that Ron Paul newsletters alleged that lobbyists for Israeli interests attempted to influence Representatives (they would hardly be doing their job if they failed to do so) and attempts to stretch that into the claim that “I begin to sense something about two steps back from Jews are running the world.””

    Uh, actually, you might want to go back and re-read what I wrote. It wasn’t his claim that Israeli lobbyists were trying to influence Congress; that’s what they do. It was his claim that Israeli agents were standing in the galleries, giving directions to members of the House how to vote. I shudder to think what else Mr. Paul thinks he sees.

    “Take the “suddenly” out of it and it sounds quite a bit less disturbing (when does Mr. Craymer think Ron Paul supporters would show up?) As for frightening intensity, there are plenty of citizens out there that have been overtaxed, overregulated and socially engineered to fuel plenty of chanting at the opportunity to have a realistic opportunity to elect an advocate of limited government to the office of president.”

    You might want to go back and re-parse that sentence with the word “suddenly.” It doesn’t modify when they appeared, but the chanting when Ron Paul appeared.

    “As for fanaticism, pare the word down to its root and you get “fan”. If Ron Paul has some enthusiastic fans, I am pleased to hear it.”

    You don’t think there’s something a bit over the top about “Ron Paul Will Save America”? America is in a heap of trouble, no question, but to think that any single man is going to “save America” is worrisomely leader worship.

    And the etymology of “fan” is uncertain–but “fanatic” comes from the Latin word “fanaticus” for “insanely but divinely inspired.” The origins of either word don’t much matter when examining the current meaning.

  10. dwlawson says:

    “You don’t think there’s something a bit over the top about “Ron Paul Will Save America”? America is in a heap of trouble, no question, but to think that any single man is going to “save America” is worrisomely leader worship.”

    What I saw at GRPC was a mass of disaffected voters. I’ve been there…still am in many ways. Ron Paul has, in my opinion, great integrity and honesty and while I don’t agree with all of his ideas, I value integrity and honesty.

    In past elections I would have voted for him in a heart beat. I quit voting for Democrats many elections ago and haven’t made the transition to Republicans yet.

    However, this election I’m a single issue voter for once—gun rights. This means getting someone who will nominate strict constructionists to SCOTUS that actually has a chance to beat Hillary.

    I’ve been wondering where RP’s fans will go if/when he loses the primary.

  11. Loretta says:

    As it stands now, I’m probably voting for Ron Paul. I wouldn’t hug him, though because that’s kinda creepy … I like his Constitutionalist views and especially his ideas on immigration.

  12. Sebastian says:

    Hey Loretta. When did you become a libertarian? :)

  13. Loretta says:

    Oh, just recently I guess. I don’t think I ever thought about politics before, actually … Such ideas are exciting

top