Is Ron Paul Packing?

The other three remaining GOP candidates are either under the Secret Service’s watchful eye or have requested their services. According to cbsnews.com, the Santorum campaign says the former Pennsy Senator will have guys with mirrored shades and microphones in their sleeves following him around starting tomorrow. That’s either a tacit acknowledgement that it’s now a serious two-man race for the nomination or a PR ploy by his campaign to let everyone know he’s for real. As for the other three . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmw8q3aeYJo

Romney, the nominal frontrunner, has had federally paid bodyguards for a while now. Not to be left out, the Gingrich campaign’s asked for protection, too. But that may be little more than a bid to still be seen as relevant rather than a response to any real or perceived threat.

And then there’s the, well, independent Ron Paul who’s neither requested nor been offered protection. “He has said before that he would not ask for Secret Service protection before he was president because it would be a waste of taxpayer money.” Long a gun rights advocate, would it really surprise anyone to find out that Paul packs heat? Not us. The only question most members of the Armed Intelligentsia would want know is, what’s his gun of choice and what rig does he use to carry it?

60 Responses to Is Ron Paul Packing?

  1. avatarDon says:

    LOL! This must be a rhetorical question?

    I could see Paul with a 4″ barreled S&W or Ruger revolver, .357 Mag, maybe an original Colt Government Model 1911, potentially a slight chance of a S&W M&P.

    -D

  2. avatarSteve says:

    I kind of doubt Ron Paul is carrying.

    First, he’s pretty skinny. Is there room for a CCW there? Wouldn’t it print?

    Second, who wants to hurt Dr. Paul? He wants to leave everyone alone and stop mucking with folks private business…That is pretty hard to get mad about.

    Besides, he probably knows some pressure points and can apply a Vulcan Nerve Pinch or some BS.

    • avatarNate says:

      “He wants to leave everyone alone and stop mucking with folks private business…”

      Come on, we can’t have that now, can we?

    • avatardave says:

      People who want to hurt presidents, presidentail candidates, and celebrities tend to be complete whackjobs who don’t give a damn about politics or ideology. The Secret Service has even stated that there are people out there who threaten EVERY president and EVERY candidate regardless of political agenda. I bet a lot of people on TTAG believe in leaving everyone alone and not mucking up other people’s business, but hey, most of them still carry because dangerous people exist in the world.

  3. avatarMatthew says:

    My guess would be a Colt Government 1911 chambered for .38 Super, with polished stainless steel finish and ivory stocks, and carried in a shoulder rig. :)

  4. avatarJoe says:

    I would be surprised if he’s NOT packing. I see him with an older, well maintained, S&W k-frame, probably with a 2 inch barrel, that he can shoot very well.

  5. avatarFrank says:

    Paul is so old school, he carries a S&W Model 3, or a Mauser C96.

  6. avatarJohn says:

    I’m pretty sure he does have at least some armed protection. Saw him last week in Kansas City and there was a security looking dude standing at the back corner of the stage eyeballing people. Hearing him speak for almost 45 minutes with no teleprompter or cards was an awesome experience. Can’t wait to go caucus for him next month!

  7. avatarCA says:

    He’s borrowing Farago’s Liberty Gun. However, when he is carrying it he refers to it as the Libert[arian] Gun.

  8. avatarNR says:

    I doubt he carries. He’s FAR more likely to be targeted by trained professionals than by a random BG.

  9. avatarPeter says:

    I’m thinking super old school, like an old 1851 Colt Navy or something

  10. avatarMichael B. says:

    I doubt he’s carrying but a bunch of his supporters definitely are! :]

    • avatarBambiB says:

      Now THAT is probably true!

      A bad guy trying to pull something on Dr. Paul in a crowd would probably be ripped apart before the police could save him.

  11. avatarBig J says:

    His tin foil hat will protect him from assassination

    • avatarBill says:

      But will it protect us from the likes of you?

      • avatarBig J says:

        There is a not-so-fine-line between:

        having libertarian values in a modern society of 360 million people

        and

        believing that it’s ok for Iran to have nukes because Israel has some, the FDA and USDA should be shut down allowing snake oil salesmen sell bottled fraud because the free market will eventually sort things like that out, and that flouridation of water is a big government conspiracy to poison the population.

        Ron Paul cranks his libertarianism to 11 and holds it there. Lower taxes, check! Balance the budget, check! Heck, I think it’s about time that we repeal the NFA. But a gold standard and isolationism? That’s a few cold cuts short of a party platter.

        • avatarBambiB says:

          Once again, ignorance (or willful stupidity) raises its ugly head.

          Ron Paul is NOT isolationist. He’s a NON-INTERVENTIONIST. Clearly you don’t know the difference, so I’ll explain.

          An isolationist wants nothing to do with other countries. No commerce, no dialog. Nothing. North Korea is isolationist.

          A non-interventionist is someone who doesn’t favor going around trying to tell other countries what to do, and invading them when they don’t comply. Switzerland is non-interventionist. Non-interventionists favor trade and have talks with other nations – they just don’t murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people to try to force their will on people in other countries.

          On nukes:
          The IAEA says Iran isn’t building nukes.
          The CIA says Iran isn’t building nukes.
          Iran says they aren’t building nukes.
          So what kind of fool thinks Iran is making nukes? Oh yeah. THAT kind of fool.

          But assume Iran DOES build a nuke. So what? Israel has over 300 nukes. More to the point, Israel has the means to DELIVER 300 nukes. Iran doesn’t even have an air force. Interventionists (all the GOP/DEM candidates for president EXCEPT Ron Paul) want to send American soldiers to bleed and die and scatter TRILLION$ in American treasure to intervene in Iran. For what? For another great “success” like Afghanistan and Iraq (which have cost more than 4,600 American lives, the maiming of more than 32,000 others and the waste of $4 trillion)? What sort of moron would go for that? Oh, I see. THAT kind of moron.

          Non-interventionists (Ron Paul) say let Israel and Iran work it out. In fact, that’s what Israel has said. Less than a year ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood on the floor of the US House of Representatives and told America, “You don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves!” So what kind of jackass would think otherwise? Yeah. That kind of jackass.

          Government outfits like the FDA and USDA are HUGE wastes of taxpayer money. And what good do they do? The USDA hasn’t been effective in stopping salmonella outbreaks. The FDA not only fails to prevent harmful drugs from hitting the market, they prevent useful drugs from improving and saving lives – resulting in misery for millions. We’re talking drugs that have been used for decades in other countries – that would cost millions to get through the bogus FDA approval process. And after the USDA and FDA waste a bunch of money, the remedy for their screwups is what it would be anyway – to sue for damages.

          I challenge you to find anywhere that Ron Paul has ever said water fluoridation is, “a big government conspiracy to poison the population“. In fact, I call you a LIAR and challenge you to prove otherwise. What Paul has said is that the federal government has no business making a blanket decision to fluoridate water. And need I remind you, unless you’re a doctor, you know jack squat about medicine compared to Doctor Paul and from the drivel in your post above it’s clear you also know far, far less about the Constitution.

          The gold standard: Sure there are idiots who think inflating the money supply is a good idea. It’s a great way to tax anyone who saves money without actually passing another tax. Since 1913, the Federal Reserve has reduced the value of the dollar by about 98%. Go back and look at how much gas, gold or any other commodity the dollar bought in 1913. Now look at what it buys today. An ounce of gold buys pretty much what it did 100 years ago. But the dollar only buys 2% of what it bought then. Still, there are imbeciles who want to operate contrary to the Constitution and seem to think government-sponsored devaluation of the dollar is a good thing. What kind of imbecile? Yep. THAT kind of imbecile.

    • avatarCharles says:

      You know it and I know it.

  12. avatarRalph says:

    Since Ron Paul officially announced that he won’t seek reelection to Congress, I’d say he’s packing his bags.

  13. avatarSean says:

    I would say an older Colt 1911. Like he was trained on in the military. Possibly a Commander. Basically a stock gun. Perhaps some new sights for his 70+ yr old eyes.

  14. avatarKoop says:

    You guys reminded me of the SNL GOP Marriott debate skit, where Ron Paul, while exiled in the parking garage, is pulled against his will into an unmarked white van. Two gunshots later, he exits the van, brushes off his suit, and waves at the parking garage camera. “Ideologically pure, and tough as nails!”

  15. avatarRopingdown says:

    I know what he’s packing: A few rather good ideas.

  16. avatarRopingdown says:

    I know what he’s packing: A few good ideas about the size of government and the federal role in education.

  17. I wouldn’t doubt it in the least bit. The real question is what firearm a classy guy like Ron Paul would carry.

    My guess? A Commander framed Colt 1911.

  18. avatar2aRez says:

    Actually, in keeping with the concealed carry principle, it’s no one’s business. Keep ‘em guessing, Ron!

  19. avatarMike OFWG says:

    I say Paul carries a Trace Rinaldi Matrix, or maybe he just carries a scalpel, a very sharp scalpel, in his boot.

  20. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    Ron seems like a Colt 45 man to me.

  21. avatarCT says:

    So what law allows him to carry nationwide while he is campaigning? While it certainly wouldn’t surprise me, I’m not aware of a US congressional concealed carry exception.

  22. avatarJason says:

    Ron Paul believes that if America is attacked, it’s our own damn fault for making enemies. Nobody ever becomes violent of their own volition. Religious ideology does not lead to violence. Mental illness does not lead to violence. A lust for wealth and power does not lead to violence. Other people only get violent after America offends them first.

    This being the case, Ron Paul doesn’t carry guns. He stays safe by practicing a policy of strict non-intervention.

    • avatarJake says:

      Didn’t he want to take care of OBL quick and on the DL, like it eventually happened anyway? I remember something about trying to go after OBL and the inner circle instead of nation building, because it was most likely he was hiding in Pakistan anyway. Way back when, pretty sure not long after 9-11. And we would have had a higher chance of getting the people who were actually guilty of planning and executing that particular horrific and inexcusable attack.

    • avatarGarynyer says:

      Because the CIA. Hasn’t stated that blowback is real or anything

      • avatarJason says:

        You ever notice how “blowback” is something that only ever applies to America? Nobody ever says, “Well sure, America bombed the hell out of that country. It was just blowback for that stuff they pulled back in…” Whenever you find a word that’s only used in one context like that, you know there’s more to the story.

        • avatarJt Hollister says:

          You have got to be kidding me.
          We bombed the shit out of them for years. We killed over 500,000 CHILDREN. By moderate estimates, over a million deaths.

          And then one group of people, not a country, decided that they were mad at us for these things. They came and killed 2500 people.

          What they did was wrong. It is silly that you believe Paul doesn’t think so. He abhors it! But our foreign policy of bombing civilians on a constant basis without even a war declaration is NOT OKAY. PERIOD. And if you think it is, you deserve to die.

        • avatarNCG says:

          I mostly agree, up to the “you deserve to die.” Way to defeat your own argument.

        • avatarJt Hollister says:

          No, the argument is not defeated. Someone who thinks it is okay to slaughter hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of completely innocent children deserves to die. There is no reasoning with such an individual. That is why war is necessary. Because of extreme views like that.

          And it’s complete hypocrisy to say otherwise. You are basically saying, yeah, it’s okay to want to go bomb INNOCENTS, but someone who is actually ADMITTEDLY GUILTY of wanting to kill millions of innocents doesn’t deserve to die? Are you kidding me?!

          The republicans are right, you can NOT lead from a position of weakness. If the establishment does not listen, they will bleed. End of story. It is the only right thing to do.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          You are kidding right? Japan one could argue was more ruthless and committed more atrocities than WW2 Germany. Perhaps you should research Dr. Paul’s actual stance instead of getting it from some talk radio shock jock. A lesson in pre-WW2 and WW2 history couldn’t hurt either.

        • avatarJason says:

          Thanks for demonstrating my point. This sort of foaming-at-the-mouth anti-American rant is exactly why Ron Paul will never win. Which is sad, because I support his economic policies. But the economy tends to suffer when you let evil go unchecked in the world too, so I guess it doesn’t matter.

        • avatarJt Hollister says:

          What part is anti-american? The part where I said innocent children shouldn’t be slaughtered en masse, or the part where I said that what the terrorists did to us was deplorable? Or are you using some sort of backward logic, where it’s okay for you to want to kill millions of innocents, but not for me to want someone who would kill millions of innocents dead or imprisoned?

          Answer: neither. YOU are the only anti-american. You and your ilk are as evil as anyone in the world has ever been. You are the ones that need to be rooted out. Not innocents. The only justification for killing another individual is that individual would otherwise kill innocents. It is not okay to go around bombing people just to demonstrate our power. It is utmost tyranny.

        • avatarJake says:

          Acknowledging the reality of the motivation of an enemy is not condoning his actions, this is the least rational warmonger argument around. RP would have gotten OBL and the other specific sick twisted individuals personally responsible for this heinous event in weeks after 9-11 using proper methodology instead of getting sidetracked on nationbuilding and letting the perps sit pretty for a DECADE.

        • avatarGabba says:

          well to be precise the term “blowback” was coined to mean retaliation for covert ops. only the people aware of the covert operations would know it was “blowback”. everyone else would think it was just regular terrorism.

    • avatarJt Hollister says:

      You are mistaken about Paul’s beliefs and I urge you to do more research.

    • avatarBambiB says:

      Jason,

      At least TRY to get it right.

      Ron Paul has said that one of the reasons we were attacked is because of our meddling in the affairs of other countries. Osama bin Laden said that’s why they attacked. The CIA says that’s why we were attacked. The 9/11 Commission said that’s why we were attacked. So why would you repeat such thoroughly insipid and discredited drivel? Are you grossly misinformed? Blindly prejudiced? Ignorant? Or is it some other mental or character defect that drives you to disseminate misinformation?

  23. avatarJason says:

    Seriously, Ron’s getting on in years. And he seems pretty frugal, so it’s not like he’d have been updating to follow the latest fashions. Whatever he’s carrying, he’s been carrying it for probably a good quarter century. Or more. looking for a concealable pistol back in the ’60s-’80s time frame carry? Something safe to drop in a pocket or medical bag? Choices are fairly limited. Colt Detective Special, S&W J-frame, or a Walther PPK. And he just strikes me as a semi-auto kinda’ guy, so I’m going to say the Walther. If he bought it after ’86, a Colt Mustang would be a possibility. But I think he probably got a gun during or shortly after his time in the military, anything newer than ’70 or so is unlikely.

  24. While I don’t agree with everything Paul says he DOES seem to be the only one serious about the Constitution and protecting our rights -ALL of them.

  25. avatarTom says:

    I think Ron Paul is more right than he is wrong. Has my vote.

  26. avatarcaffeinated says:

    He’ll get my write-in even if he isn’t on the ballot. As for choice of CCW I’m guessing perhaps a Colt 1862 pocket police?

  27. avatarJohn Fritz says:

    I think Dr. Paul is partial to either a 5906 or a 4506/4566. He’s a doctor. He likes stainless steel.

  28. avatarGoldenboy says:

    You can ask Japan about blowback. They bombed Pearl Harbor and got two nukes dropped on them.

    And Ron Paul definitely has my vote!

  29. avatarNCG says:

    Man, Ron Paul. Straight shooter, for sure. Crazy, maybe. The left and the right (mostly the right) fear him. Texan. Patriot.

    I think he’s right on with foreign policy. If you think the actions of the U.S. don’t affect worldwide opinion, you’re an idiot. “They hate us for our freedom…” Yeah, sure. They may hate us for our wealth, but mostly they hate us for our foreign policy, our murder of women and children. If a foreign country attacked your town with drones, tell me you wouldn’t feel the same way.

    • avatarBambiB says:

      If they hated people for being wealthy or free, why haven’t they attacked Switzerland?

      Oh wait.

      Switzerland hasn’t been interfering in their internal political affairs since the early 1950s, and doesn’t have tens of thousands of soldiers located at dozens of bases inside countries where we have murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians. Could that have something to do with why we’re less popular?

  30. avatarBambiB says:

    This is just B.S.

    I sort of doubt that Ron Paul owns more than a few guns. Imagine that! One of the most stalwart supporters of the Second Amendment in the entire Country without an arsenal!

    Keep in mind that Ron Paul supports freedom across the board. You want to use drugs? The Federal government should have no say in the matter. You want an abortion? While Paul personally disapproves, the idea that the Federal Government should be involved in the decision is a much greater affront than the abortion itself.

    If you’re concerned about your Second Amendment rights, or even any of your rights of any kind, Ron Paul is the only serious choice among the candidates. Every… single… one… of the other candidates is an ass-hat clown. If you don’t see that, you need to look more closely.

    Does Ron Paul carry a concealed weapon? Highly doubtful. Ron Paul is a very intelligent man. He well knows that there would be virtually no up side to him carrying a gun on the campaign trail, and potentially a huge down side. Imagine the lamestream press crucifying him for carrying a gun in violation of some law or other.

    So Dan, have you stopped beating your wife? (On par with “…what’s his gun of choice and what rig does he use to carry it?”)

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.