Gun Tweet of the Day: Half Cocked Edition

The famously anti-war former Congressman from Tejas took to the Twitters to, apparently, imply that a decorated serviceman who served four tours of duty for his country — picking off insurgents, thereby saving the lives of his fellow servicemen and -women — deserved to be shot in cold blood. Which apparently means everyone who’s ever gone through basic and fought in a war in one of the US armed forces deserves a similar fate. No nation can survive without people like Kyle who, no matter how distasteful the work, are willing to put their lives on the line to defend the Constitution, their fellow citizens and the freedoms they enjoy. That Paul holds them all in such low regard is disgusting and sad. Maybe it’s time for someone to take the keyboard and smartphone away from the angry old man before he really embarrasses himself.

152 Responses to Gun Tweet of the Day: Half Cocked Edition

  1. avatarJoshinIA says:

    That sucks i almost always agreed with Ron Paul until now.

    • Samsies. He was my favorite presidential candidate.

    • avatarJohn Fritz says:

      Me too.

      I’m hoping that maybe there’s some sort of misunderstanding here.

      • avatarMALTHUS says:

        When the servants of Muhammed hijacked four airliners and murdered thousands of noncombattants, Ron Paul cynically exploited the opportunity to criticize US foreign policy.

        Just as the political Left secretly rejoices that Adam Lanza shot to death a multitude of children, Ron Paul seems to brighten up considerably when Americans get murdered for being “oppressors”.

        I have been a libertarian foot soldier for more than twenty-five years but I no longer will fight Ron Paul’s battles. It ends with his outrageous and ill-considered remark about Chris Kyle.

        • avatarPaul W says:

          Ron Paul was never a libertarian; he was a federalist. He seemed to be OK with state, county, or city governments screwing people over so long as it wasn’t federal, and that is not consistent with libertarianism as I understand it. I think that the blind hero worship of Ron Paul has done more to hurt the libertarian movement than just about anything else.

    • avatarg says:

      Seems so un-Ron Paul, especially since he has a lot of veteran supporters. Ron Paul hacked, or maybe he doesn’t manage his own Twitter?

      • avatarBeninMA says:

        Agreed, Paul’s facebook post was more in keeping with his message:

        “As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend’s violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP”

      • avatarDBeans says:

        I’m pretty sure that’s the case, its the biggest reason I think he couldn’t get out of first gear last year. He kept letting immature amateurs run his campaign and social media. Ron Paul just doesn’t talk like that he’s a rich 86 year old I find it hard he uses twitter, I can’t figure it out and I’m 24!

        Dan I think you need to chill out. somehow I dont see how this tweet is actually him cryptically saying he wants all our soldiers dead…… I mean come on. This is like the conservative version of the race card, you must want soldiers dead and hate America!

        In case there’s any confusion he is against ANY restrictions on weapons unlike Mitt gun banner Romney who I think would have passed a gun restriction bill by now if he was in. Luckily a split congress is saving us right now.

      • avatarJames W says:

        According to sources Ron runs his own social media since leaving the House of Reps. http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/why-ron-pauls-twitter-is-getting-a-little-more-in

      • avatarMark v says:

        Classic Ron Paul. No surprise here.

    • avatarpat says:

      I always looked at him as one or two beers short of a six pack, though the remaining beers were super quality microbrews or Belgium triple fermented goodness. Jon Stewart stated that he looked like the bad guy at the end of each Scooby Doo episode after being unmasked (“yikes, its Mr Smithers”, “and I’d of gotten away with it too, if it wasnt for you nosey kids”).

    • avatarPaul says:

      So according to this VILE old man, since I did two tours in Nam, I should die by gun fire, as I own firearms. I used firearms in my job(s), and I carry a firearm now, as I have a CCW. Never liked this old blowhard. It’s past time for him to go AWAY!

  2. avatarAaronW says:

    I’m seeing that same vile response to Chris Kyle’s death over, and over again on various forums, “Live by the gun, die by the gun.”
    If that were true, then why are the guys at my local shooting club occasionally dying of natural causes, and not gunfire?

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Doesn’t that seem to lend credence to the hijacked or hacked tweet theory? I’m as anti-war as RP, if not more, but that just doesn’t sound like him to me.
      Something smells rotten here. This needs some lo0king into.

      I’ve disagreed with RP on several things, but, as I said, this just doesn’t sound like his way of saying things.

  3. avatarJumbie says:

    What he said is over the line, but it doesn’t seem to be anti-gun so much as anti-war.

    As for Dan’s comments, I think part of the reason the Iraq and Afghan occupations are so controversial is that it’s not clear the soldiers are actually protecting the Constitution, freedoms or their fellow citizens rather than the interests of a moneyed elite.

    • avatarDavid W. says:

      Yeah, I agree, I think he is more anti-war than anti-gun.

      You can be anti-war and pro gun at the same time.

      I believe we should get the frak out of every country but the United States and only put troops on any ground that is not American ground only when the people on that ground are in need of a massive ass kicking. Ass kicking only, no “kill insurgents and bring democracy” no “regime change” kick ass, leave, drink beer, eat apple pie, and watch baseball.

      We need to stop being world police and we need to stop keeping Europe from slaughtering each other. Just make it known that if the next time Europe decides to commit genocide/kill each other/invade other countries etc, that if they attack us we will attack them.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        “You can be anti-war and pro gun at the same time.”

        YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT.

        • avatargyrfalcon says:

          ““You can be anti-war and pro gun at the same time.”
          YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT.”"

          You can if you’re not a complete idiot.

    • avatarBrad says:

      A soldier/sailor/Marine/airman does not get to choose the way they serve in. They only choose to serve. If the wars were immoral or illegal, then the politicians who serve as our elected officials are guilty. Not Kyle. The comments about KYle service by Paul and others who are in line with him here smack of the same anti servicemen hate experienced in Vietnam. And that was our lowest point in history as far as I am concerned. The radicals are being exposed.

      • avatarjkp says:

        I think Paul’s comments were out of line, and yet, I cannot agree with you, Brad.

        If a soldier is given illegal orders, it is his duty to refuse to follow those orders. The oath is to the Constitution, not to the elected officials.

        If he was aware that the orders were illegal and followed them anyway, that makes him a criminal, too.

        • avatarBrad says:

          True jkp, and i apologize for the confusion. I didnt mean following illegal orders was his duty, I probably should have been more clear. If those wars were later detemined to be illegal or immoral then….etc. I personally don’t think they were but I do feel that Iraq at least, was a mistake.

        • avatarjkp says:

          Agreed — a mistake is not the same thing as illegal or immoral.

    • avatarIng says:

      Iraq was a mistake, a stupid move based on bad information that confirmed the pre-existing bias of the bigwigs in Washington.

      But Afghanistan… Have you forgotten who paid, trained, and sent those Al Qaeda terrorists over here to kill 3,200 innocent people? We have as much reason to be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan right now as we did to fight in World War II.

      • avatarCulpeper Kid says:

        Damn straight. It’s as if we were fighting the Nazis in Germany and pulled out before finishing the job. By the way, the reason the Nazis lost is we totally kicked their ass, leveled em, something we don’t seem to have the stomach for anymore.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Yes, I remember. It was the Saudis. And they sent Saudis. We should have left Afghanistan after the first five weeks and said “F##k up again and we’ll do it the same way, but but with even bigger bombs. For five weeks.”

        As for Iraq, it was no mystery. Saddam tried to turn south from Kuwait into Saudi Arabia, and we stopped him. We couldn’t leave him in power dreaming of his next big move to destabilize the oil supply to Japan and others. Yes, he could have caused a depression, almost as easily as Wall Street. We didn’t want the oil. We wanted the oil to keep flowing. For good reason. Five years from now we’ll be energy-independent if we don’t let them ship it out of the US. But we still won’t be able to afford a collapse of oil deliveries abroad to Japan, China, and Europe. That’s reality.

  4. avatarmountainpass says:

    “Maybe it’s time for someone to take the keyboard and smartphone away from the angry old man before he really embarrasses himself.”

    That “time” has passed.

    • avatarCZJay says:

      Funny how you belittle one of the few men who tried to defend your rights when he was serving in congress.

      You don’t even know what exactly he meant. Could have been something like, he committed violence to others and someone committed violence to him.

      At the end of the day who truly cares about that tweet. He isn’t even in government anymore, so it is irrelevant to us.

  5. avatarBryan says:

    From FB:

    Ron Paul -
    “As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend’s violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies.” -REP

  6. avatarCZJay says:

    Dan posts this emotional response to a rather vague tweet. Its actually funny because Dan is doing the exact same thing as the quote that is used in the tweet by attacking the “angry old man.”

    The military isn’t filled with good people that only do good things. Let’s just say that. So just because they say he was some awesome super hero…. yeah you know. There is no point in glorifying anyone.

  7. avatargherkin says:

    FO RP

  8. avatarGreat Lenin's Ghost says:

    lol, how exactly was an invasion of iraq a defense of the constitution? a defense of halliburton’s profit margins sure.

    here’s a link to one of the many stories detailing how the sniper’s ROE in iraq was “shoot every male you see.” http://ceinquiry.us/2013-02-03-chris-kyle-snipers

    What a brave man, defending our “freedoms” by shooting random males in a country we invaded. I know I feel safer :)

    Once again, this site illustrates that it is less about gun advocacy and more about nationalist right wing ideology :)

    http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

    • avatarDavid W. says:

      “Willing to defend the constitution”

      Is what was said.

      Rules of Engagement are set up by the commanders of the army, not the individual people. Didn’t even say he did it.

      One of the wonderful things about the internet is you can read whatever you like from whoever you like. Now, I know you can be as mean as you want on other websites that support your cause, knowing the majority of the opposite side’s comments will be deleted, but here we consider fostering a good conversation as very important.

      There are probably thousands of posts online now calling this American Hero lots of bad things. Maybe you’ll fit in better over there?

      • avatarGreat Lenin's Ghost says:

        I am a proud Communist and supporter of the 2nd amendment, as all communists should be considering the AK-47 is considered the world over to be a symbol of resistance to tyranny :)

        Why should I not be allowed to post here? This website claims it is for gun advocacy, not right wing extremist politics :)

        • avatarIng says:

          If you’re actually for the 2nd Amendment, why have you spent so much time here hacking on other people’s reasons for supporting the same thing you do?

          Doesn’t communism (not socialist economics, but communism as a basis of government) conflict with the Constitution at a basic individual rights level? Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by saying you’re a communist. Or maybe you’re not a communist at all, but a dedicated troll. Which is it?

        • avatarCZJay says:

          Collectivism/statism is all the same.

          You cannot be a communist and support the ability to resist tyranny. It’s an oxymoron.

          Just seems like you want to start a fight. You know trolling…

        • avatarDavid W. says:

          I honestly don’t know what to do with that. I’m sorry you feel that 200 million people getting executed by their government is a good thing that needs to be repeated. Hopefully one day you will release your anger and understand that communism has failed, and will always fail.

          It is nice that you support the 2nd amendment though. Most people who support communism want it to go away because they know the only way they have ever gained power is by disarming people and the executing massive amounts of those same people. The simple fact that you support it allows people who believe in freedom to be left alone, and freedom to work for themselves for their own betterment, and freedoms to help others by choice rather than government fiat back up with threats of imprisonment and executions to fight against your communist ideals of mass executions, poverty, and starvation. I mean keeping AK47s and the like in the hands of the people who don’t want communism means there is a greater chance that communism will never happen which has got to be hard to deal with for a communist.

          Hopefully one day someone can teach you that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th. Hopefully your respect of those 9 rights and rules of the United States will be while those rights and rules still exist. I would hate to see you have to live in your communist dream of starvation, executions, and poverty, but I don’t worry that I will have to live in it. I will long be dead in one of those mass executions or in the fighting to prevent it.

        • avatarRandy Drescher says:

          I got an email from a gorgeous Russian lady awhile back comrade. On a scale of 1 to 10 she was about a hundred & 5. What does this have to do with anything? Nothing, color me red, Randy

        • avatarThomasR says:

          Great Lenins Ghost- you are what Lenin called “A useful idiot”, he looked at people like you as the cheering herd to be used and then murdered when no longer useful along with all the others who would not be “Re-educated ” in your death camps.

          In your communist utopia, you would not be allowed to own weapons, unless you were a designated agent of the state enforcing your collective good as determined by your betters and murdering anyone who didn’t agree with the state.

          As long as there is the ability of common citizens to have the means to resist the mandates of your communist utopia/nightmare your mad vision will never come to pass in our country.

        • avatarpat says:

          Commie Ghost turd.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Invasion? The way we acted, you’d have thought we were REPOSSESSING it.

    • avatarpat says:

      You really are a dirty commie pig, arent you, Stalin Ghost.

  9. avatarThomas Paine says:

    who had a sword? there were swords involved? swords are dangerous.

  10. avatarTed says:

    Because of those that have served, I have never had to.

    For that I am eternally grateful.

    Ron Paul should be too.

  11. avatarWyocowboy says:

    I used to respect Ron Paul even though I disagreed with his stance on Islamic terrorism. No more respect; he can FOAD.

  12. avatarEvil Oculus says:

    All of us who decided to enter the military have accepted the fact that we may die a violent death. That’s a part of being a soldier. We could get shot or blown up by the enemy. We could get hit by friendly fire. We could suffer a training accident.

    Kyle was killed via friendly fire. By a person who was in essence shell-shocked and couldn’t see through the fog of war. Had Kyle not been a soldier, he would not end up in a situation where he took that man shooting. He was, however, a soldier. He knew the risks, and although his death is tragic and by no means did he deserve to be killed, it was not entirely unlikely.

    It is very true, that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. This phrase is jot a judgement or a condemnation, it just means that it’s pretty damn likely to happen. Certainly more likely than with those folks who are not in the military.

    As for Ron Paul, I doubt he meant it as an insult to Kyle or any other soldier. And you know what? He is right. If we stayed out of the stupid, useless, other people’s wars, perhaps this would not have happened. It’s one thing to fight for ourselves, for resources even, but dying for the sake of nation-building in some irrelevant, savage land, is not what we should be doing.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      And now both the murdered and the murderer will be used in the “service” of further demonizing our service veterans, and, by extension – because they will MAKE IT FOLLOW – defenders of the Second Amendment.

      I’m not going on here about Obama’s Kill List. But I did just mention it.

    • avatarpat says:

      The tweet is the tweet. Indefensible.

  13. avatarKnowWhatIamTalkingAbout says:

    Live by the keyboard, computer, or smartphone, and die by it.

    RP – take whatever device you used to tweet that trash and have someone hit you over the head with it until you are deceased, and then someone can tweet or whatever how you lived and died by that technology.

    People just don’t seem to have respect for each other anymore.

  14. avatarNS says:

    Good for Ron Paul — what makes a sniper so great for shooting people that are not inherent enemies? We invaded THEIR country, if you’ll remember. And there is a distinction between terrorist and insurgent. Calling all Iraqi or Afghan fighters that are fighting the US Military terrorists is demagoguery. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians in war. Yes that does exist in these wars, but simply opposing the might of the US Military is not terrorism. I would hope that people in this country would oppose (with force) any attempt by another country to make us conform to their ideals by invading us.

    And acting as if every single military/service member by their very existence is defending our freedom to breathe American air is ludicrous. The US Military defends Americans when American citizens are threatened. American citizens are not threatened by 99% of the objects of our military conquests. It is propaganda to say that a service member is defending x, y and z if there’s no threat to x, y or z. The single greatest threat to our rights is from within, not without.

    And as pro-gunners, we often like to point out that antis use overwrought, emotional pleas and ignore statistics. You are much more likely to have your freedom taken away or threatened by those who are in power than by those who are hiding in caves. Those who imagine a doomsday scenario where people are raised for the soul purpose of killing Americans because you hate t-bone steaks and blue jeans and freedom need to get a grip and realize that maybe they’re fighting us because we’re over there. No, that can’t be it.

    • avatarRambeast says:

      A thousand times this.

    • avatarpat says:

      Belittling a soldier, a sniper, then talking about US policy is nonrelevant.
      You seem to be equating US soldiers with the terrorists who swarmed in from Iran, Pakistan, CRAPistan, etc…and targeted civilians with bombs ans suicide vests. We can all argue policy and execution, but tying it onto this patriots death is truther, nutter, nonsense and another topic altogether. I was for invasion (until we found out WMD’s were destroyed), but against the rebuilding. Other peoples opinions may be different.

    • avatarJericho941 says:

      You do know the vast majority of insurgents were not even Iraqi, right?

      • avatarpat says:

        All terrorists. Insurgent is just liberal term for terrorist. They came from Iran, Pakistan, Crapistan, Bananastan, etc. Almost all the dead Iraqi were murdered by these ‘Islamists’.
        Libtards and truther/nutters try to make moral equivalency between the terrorist murderers and our troops.

  15. avatarCZJay says:

    I suggest this post be removed, as it is rather irrelevant to The Truth About Guns.

    All you are going to get is a bunch of hate speech and nationalism/militarism. We don’t need a bunch of men stroking someone’s ego because they wear a uniform and have killed people.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      And now a (possibly erroneous) RP quote has been used to derail a discussion of the death of Mr. Kyle.

      GET A GRIP, folks.

      • avatarSee This Also says:

        I agree with both of you. It’s a shame so many people are jumping to conclusions here, I honestly believe that they are misinterpreting what “he” is saying.

        Let’s also keep in mind that Ron Paul is one of the only politicians who truly believes in gun rights and has fought to protect them for us for decades, regardless of whether or not it was the popular thing to do.

        If TTAG were to have a grading system I’ll bet of all the politicians RP would be the only one to be graded an “A”… just a thought.

  16. avatarTotenglocke says:

    I get that Chris was a great marksman and probably did a lot of great things, but can we stop the propaganda that killing people who posed no threat to us and never attacked us (remember, he was in Iraq) is somehow “defending the Constitution” or “defending our rights / freedom”? We attacked Iraq without provocation – twice. We were the bad guys invading another country that never harmed us or posed any threat to us.

    • avatarSee This Also says:

      I have nothing wrong with the military per se, but that is the one thing that bothers me about some supporters of the military. The mentality among a lot of them seems to be that the troops are simply following orders; they’re robots and no matter what they do (short of something “extremely heinous” like treason, killing one of their own, etc.) they were just “defending the Constitution” and “fighting for our freedom” and therefore they still deserve the utmost respect and we should never ever say anything negative about them, and everything bad that happens is the President’s fault, Congress’ fault, etc.

      Personally I think this line of thinking is very wrong.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Joe Liberal Arts thought the all-volunteer army was a great idea. He wouldn’t have to serve. “Let the poor guys do it!” And the rich guys said “Yes, we’ll just pay the poor guys. You folks don’t have to do a thing!” And Joe Liberal Arts is surprised by the result? Slowly is waking up to the reality? If you want a citizen army, then citizens have to serve. Not just poor guys or people looking for a steady pay check and glory, fed up with their small-town clerking job. Ordinary citizens for whom it is a serious inconvenience.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Sorry, but that’s incorrect. We fought multiple wars of aggression before we got rid of the draft.

          WW1 – We were not being threatened by any country. It was a European war started by our “allies” who tried to bully Germany and Austria-Hungary and bit off more than they could chew. After the bullies got their asses handed to them, they begged the US to save them. The American people did not support such a war, so the US intentionally sent a passenger ship into a war zone where they knew German ships were sinking any boat that came in – the German’s even explicitly warned the US to not send ships in there due to the “sink on sight” policy. The US government then used the sinking of the Lusitania to get Americans to support going to war. After winning the war, the aggressors then insisted on horrific punishments for Germany and the other countries. As a result of these horrific living conditions for the victims of their aggression, they became very hateful towards the Western world and they welcomed in Hitler and the Nazi Party….

          WWII – If we hadn’t intervened in a war that was none of our business (WWI), the Central Powers would likely have one and there would have been no Hitler, no Nazi party, no Holocaust, no WWII. This was a justified war though in that Japan attacked us first, then Germany declared war on the US.

          Korean War – A civil war in Korea that was none of our business. We had no justification for entering that war because North Korea posed no threat to the US in any way.

          Vietnam – Again, a civil war in an Asian country that we had no business getting involved in. The VC posed no threat to the US and we gained nothing from forcing 60,000 young men to die there.

          All four of those wars relied on drafts for troops, so do not lie and say that US wars of aggression were caused by eliminating the draft.

        • avatarSee This Also says:

          Three points:

          1) I’m not sure what your response has to do with my comment. Not a big deal though.

          2) Stop watching so much Fox news and reading so many neo-con websites; liberals are definitely not the only ones who are against things like the draft or the interventionist nature of our military, and I am certainly not a liberal. Anybody who truly believes in personal freedom (what this country supposedly stands for — “liberty and justice for all”) is against the draft.

          3) It’s interesting how many people on the one hand supposedly believe in the Constitution, yet on the other hand support a draft, when the 13th Amendment clearly and explicitly states that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

          Last time I checked the draft didn’t operate on a voluntary basis.

          If a war is truly worth fighting, and the war was not instigated by our own country, we’ll have no problems raising enough members of the military.

    • avatarJürgen says:

      +1

      Invading foreign countries under false pretexts is not “defending our own freedoms”.

    • avatarpat says:

      If they were killing our troops, and civilians, then they are terrorists who must be destroyed. Its quite simple.

      • avatarJürgen says:

        And what exactly were we doing there, invading their land?

        • avatarpat says:

          Saddam never played by the rules after the 1st go round so we finished the job. The terrorists were there to murder Iraqi civilians and our troops. We should have left after killing Saddam and finding out the WMD were destroyed and overrated (even Saddam claimed he had a huge stockpile). Nation building for stability is not a very effective in that region, and is VERY expensive in blood and treasure.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        How are they terrorists if we attacked first? That’s like claiming that if you break into someones home and attack them that THEY are the assailant when they defend themselves.

      • avatarPaul W says:

        Last I checked, killing military members during a time of war isn’t terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians, by a non-state actor, to achieve political ends–that’s the general definition most nations use. I’d drop the “non-state actor” clause because that seems to be in there exclusively as a CYA tool for politicians (see, we’re not terrorist, we’re the government!).
        That’s regardless of how you feel about the current wars–I support Afghanistan and oppose Iraq personally.

      • avatarSee This Also says:

        Pat, couldn’t the same mentality be used the other way around? US troops are killing Iraqi and Afghan troops and civilians, and so they must be destroyed?

        Obviously not… so no, it’s not quite that simple.

        • avatarpat says:

          The terrorists were the ones murdering the Iraqi civilians. In any case, RP is a tool for the tweet. The American soldier was just doing his job and killing the murderers of civilians was a bonus.

  17. avatarGregolas says:

    Mr. Paul’s misuse of the quote from Matt.26:52 is common, but disturbing. It reflects an utter callousness toward the murdered Chris Kyle and his family. He compounds his unkindness by tweeting this bilge.
    Bad form Mr. Paul.

  18. avatarGreat Lenin's Ghost says:

    Statism has nothing to do with collectivism. :)

    the Bolsheviks resisted the literal tyranny of Tsarist oppression by using guns. If you think the peasants were better off under the monarchy than under the Bolsheviks, you are completely ignorant of the topic and have read too much Ayn Rand. :)

    What happened after Stalin seized power had nothing to do with the Bolshevik revolution, Leninism, Marxism, or socialism generally. They are as unrelated as Napoleon and French Republicanism :)

    • avatarDavid W. says:

      Better off under a monarchy?

      Probably. Ever hear of the Red Terror where Lenin and his buddies had people tied to planks and slowly inserted into furnaces? Where Lenin and his buddies flayed the skin to make their gloves? Stripped their opponents naked and put them in barrels with nails driven through the sides and rolled them around? Crucifixions? Pouring water on prisoners to make living ice statues? Taking husbands hostage so when their wives come home they could be raped in exchange for their husbands lives? Decossackization? Actual god damn quotas for executions by his followers?

      The above is what you support.

      Seriously man, have some respect for human life.

      • avatarGreat Lenin's Ghost says:

        None of this is at all true, and the “Great Terror” was associated with Stalinism.

        Remember that time those violent rebels sacked the homes of monarchists, dipped them in their families in hot tar, covered them in feathers and hung them from trees? Those terrorists were called the sons of liberty :)

        It must be nice to live in a cozy world devoid of facts :)

        • avatarGreat Lenin's Ghost says:

          The “red terror” was associated with counter-revolutionary violence and the incipient crackdown. It was a civil war and totally justifiable. :)

          I personally consider Stalin’s terror against the cossacks (a right wing extremist group) to be entirely justified as well. Can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs and if the eggs are right-traitors then it’s not a loss of “human” life :)

          Here’s mark twain on these reigns of “terror”:

          “There were two ‘Reigns of Terror’, if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the “horrors of the… momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror – that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”

          A few million dead is a small price to pay if they are awful people. It would be effective in the american south too, I think. They are as reactionary and scummy as any Ukranian. :)

        • avatarDavid W. says:

          So genocide is okay as long as its against the people you do not agree with?

          Torture is okay as long as its against the people you do not agree with?

          Rape is okay as long as its against the people you do not agree with?

          And I’m talking about the Red Terror in Russian, not the one in France. Twain died before the Russian Red Terror. So you tell me how nice it is to live in a world devoid of facts.

          Your side is the side of genocide, my side is the side of freedom. Your side asks for everyone to live in fear as a collective. My side asks for everyone to live the way they want to live as individuals. Statism is Collectivism because statism puts the power in the state that is the collective.

          It’s one thing to kill people in war, its another to execute unarmed populations and torture and maim them. You are a sick individual. I repeat, have some respect for human life.

          I’m done with this. But know, if your ideals of a world of pain and suffering ever gain momentum, millions will fight against your hundreds. You will not win. Communism is slavery. Communism means work or die. Work or be tortured. Work for communism and communism won’t slaughter you, rape your mother, your sisters, your daughters, your wife, won’t torture your sons, brothers, father, and husband. It is slavery. Don’t call it anything else. Be factual.

          I’m done. You are lower then dog shit. You are lower then maggots on dog shit. You are a communist, not human. You don’t deserve to be spoken to or even acknowledged by me.

        • avatarpat says:

          Why are we talking worthless Russia.
          Communism is a failed experiment that has never, and will never work (except on some leftist college professors notepad). Leave it in the 20th century with the over 100 million dead to serve as silent testament.
          You dont have alot of money, do you Ghost Commie?

    • avatarWilliam says:

      For once, I agree with you.

  19. avatarslow says:

    As a long term supporter of Congressman Paul it is a sad day. I now see that he has the same affliction as the rest of the DC criminal cartel.

  20. avatarTRUTHY says:

    I the Pauls were the darlings of CONservatives?

  21. avatarJohn Boch says:

    You wrote: Maybe it’s time for someone to take the keyboard and smartphone away from the angry old man before he really embarrasses himself.

    Too late, Dan.

    Too goddamn late.

    John

  22. avatarNelson says:

    Right. because 77yr olds Twitter, and because Twitter accounts never get hacked.

    Even during his POTUS run, he NEVER Twittered himself, nor updated FaceBook by himself. He always had staffers and volunteers do it. Also, his Facebook, Twitter, and even his own RP2012 campaign websites were attacked and hijacked repeatedly.

    If it was not simply a malicious hack, but one of his past staffers or volunteers who typed it, granted, it clearly still doesn’t bode well for Ron Paul’s people managing skills. Unfortunately, that’s sorta what you get with a typical libertarian: they’re not micro-managers of people. One reason why frankly, I’m glad he’s not the POTUS. LOL.

    Hacked accounts are a daily reality all bloggers have to contend with, at some point in their short net-lifespan. All bloggers should be familiar with such probable reality, if not should expect and accept it as such.

    Frankly, if you’re a blogger and your site hasn’t been hacked, you’re irrelevant in the blogosphere.

    Ron Paul does not volunteer to interject himself into a controversy. Not his style. Sure he’s blunt, when ASKED. But he NEVER initiates them.

    As someone who’s been following Ron Paul’s works and his PERSONAL writings and sentiments for over a decade, I would know. It’s clear to me that it is highly unlikely that he didn’t write this himself. Of course I could be wrong. But, I doubt it.

    Note the difference in his FB post:

    Ron Paul -
    “As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend’s violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies.”

    As the saying goes Dan, when you ASSume…

    Also, as a REAL medical doctor (no honest scientist would ever refer to Psychology/Psychiatry as a real science, as 100% repetitive confirmations are not really what psychology/psychiatry deals with; it’s a philosophy and observation of commonly stimuli-prompted human behavior, at best), he would NOT presume that using a familiar activity to start ‘treating’ someone with PTSD wouldn’t “make sense.”

    A familiar ‘anchor activity’ is precisely how one would begin to approach any psychological issues.

    The fact that the Twitter comment stated that “it doesn’t make sense,” makes PERFECT sense to me that Ron Paul didn’t write this himself.

    You guys really need to learn to ‘read’ narrative styles of other writers, to know whether or not they ACTUALLY wrote things, before presumptively yapping away, as if they actually did.

    Ron Paul is a guy who doesn’t attack Bernanke, nor Giuliani, even when it’s called for, yet he suddenly decides to rile up sensitive tough guy gunnies’ feathers, more astoundingly, immediately after someone got murdered?

    Uh, no. Don’t think so.

    Really, as writers, you SHOULD know better.

    As for this:

    “That Paul holds them all in such low regard is disgusting and sad. Maybe it’s time for someone to take the keyboard and smartphone away from the angry old man before he really embarrasses himself.”

    Um, Dan, you do realize that “That Paul holds them all in such low regard is disgusting and sad” that is purely YOUR baseless a-priori PRESUMPTION about someone else’s own mind/thoughts that you have no way of verifying, right?? Well, that is unless you’re a psychic who can read minds, as well as, is a computer hacktivist who doesn’t know that Twitter accounts can be hacked.

    Hey, didn’t Karl Rove just start a RINO SuperPAC to purge the GOP of Tea Party, libertarians, and paleo conservatives today? But of course, that could just be a coincidence.

    ===============================

    PS.

    And, this is to all real commie fcuk neoCons who are nothing more than AIPAC-cocksuckers who LOVE dual-citizenshipped traitorous assholes in Senate like FeinSKUNK and Chucky Schmucker who love legislating away our fundamental natural rights, who hate Ron Paul and every other Constitutionalist and look forward to every occasion to bash them: simply FU, FOAD!

    GTFO of my America. Be an America-1ster, or STFU!

    Then, lookup USS Liberty, ya historically amnesic Trotskyites.

  23. avatarRopingdown says:

    Ron Paul obviously meant “live by ‘shooting is good PTSD therapy,’ die by ‘shooting is good PTSD therapy.” I have no argument with that. PTSD is NOT one of those things for which “you just have to get back on the horse quickly.” It requires that people learn not to constantly rehearse in their minds the worst moments, and instead learn to displace such activity with frequent remembrance of good moments, comraderie, positive moments. I have no direct experience with it, but believe for PTSD vets we should not have the DEA busting people for MDMA, but rather the FDA insuring purity of MDMA and its provision for clinical use. Much better that range days for those in real psychological trouble. Obviously.

  24. avatarkevhead says:

    Seems like he’s trying to squeeze two different messages into 140(?) tweetable characters. First, I totally agree with his isolationist philosophy and maybe he’s hinting that the same violence could take (and has taken) place here on a more national level based on our world behavior. We have enough unsolved problems at home to deal with.

    Second, I agree that while CK’s motives were totally unselfish and noble, RP’s right. If the shooter was severely mentally disturbed he needs to get back to a baseline before handling dangerous machinery. That requires someone trained in healing, not killing. I have great respect for Chris Kyle and his service protecting my country and my rights at the command of immoral politicians, and he was doing his best to help a brother, but isn’t almost akin to Adam Lanza’s mother taking him to the range?

    But what are the options?? What is the govt that sends these kids to death, dismemberment, and permanent mental disability doing to treat these fallen heroes?? Now they can point to him as another reason for gun control. Perfect. They are probably all for PTSD vets taking to the range with AR 15s.

  25. avatarLance says:

    Everyone says something dumb this is the case but his son Rand Paul is one of the best Senators there so I wont hold this against him.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      If he’d just stop sending me those obnoxious, reactionary emails. I’d be a lot more likely to support him if he wasn’t always telling me that the blue hats were coming to take my guns TOMORROW.

    • avatarKKB says:

      True, Lance, but Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. One’s one of our best senators, the other is a senile old man making conservatives look like idiots.

  26. avatarBruce says:

    Remember, part of oath Chris took was to follow orders, which he did to best of his ability. If he had not, he would have been placed in prison.

    If the orders were illegal congress should have stopped the president from giving them. So you could say Ron Paul was the guilty party. Perhaps, Ron Paul should just shut the f*** up.

    Of course, there is the first amendment, so I guess he can speak any sh*t he wants.

  27. avatar@IAmNewge says:

    Damn. I’ve always been a huge supporter of Ron Paul. I’ve even sent his campaign money on multiple occasions. I have typically agreed with his position of not interfering in all the worlds problems. That being said this is incredibly disappointing. I’ve always felt that Ron Paul’s position was opposition to war but complete respect for the soldiers there doing their jobs. I guess I was wrong. Very, very disappointing.

  28. avatarken says:

    Funny thing is I almost posted the exact same words on the Kyle post but I didn’t have time. Kyle famously said he felt no remorse for the 160+ people he had to kill in the line of duty, I don’t think we should be required to feel remorse for him. The people he killed were defending their country/way of life just like Kyle, most were not evil terrorist demons. I think he was a badass and a great American but in all likelihood he enjoyed killing those Taliban, so the die by the sword thing is 100% true.

    • avatarDBeans says:

      I find it strange the difference between this generation s veterans and the others. My grandfather barely ever talks about ww2 and when he does he cries, he feels terrible about killing people. I am sincerely curious as to what the difference is. Is it the lack of religion now a days, that they volunteered and my grandfather was drafted as soon as he got out of highschool, or maybe because there Arabs and its just easier to kill someone or something that doesn’t look like you or talk like you,or maybe our government is just better at turning our troops into killers. BTW not calling our troops racists just Wondering if a natural tendency to care less about the death of other groups of people causes this difference

      • avatarMilsurp Collector says:

        Your average WWII veteran had never seen human death prior to enlisting. The world was a smaller place back then and without televised combat footage people couldn’t even comprehend what it was like to fight in a war-zone until they were right in the thick of it.

        Just now it took me all of eight seconds to find an uncensored video of Mexican cartel members chainsawing a guy’s head off without even making the leap to the video itself. Naturally, I’m not against easy access to violence or legal pornography on the internet. It’s freedom of speech/expression and kids have got to learn about the real world sooner or later. What I do not deny is that long term access to extremely graphic material can and will leave some kind of visually based desensitization imprint on a child’s mind over the years that some will carry with them for life. People all ready know what death looks like form start to finish and can find ten watchable videos of it in under a minute on any computer.

        I am not saying every soldier from the US or abroad today is a criminal just for choosing to serve. I know former servicemen who have never been deployed to the Middle East let alone fired a round at anything more living than a paper target in marksmanship training.

        I’ve read many first hand accounts of combat in conflicts past and present. One common thread they share is that war is not and never will be sanitized. Every army, past, present, and even future has or will have some form of blood on its hands from war crimes, a tragic but basic reality of human nature.

    • avatarJuliesa says:

      Most of the guys he was killing in Fallujah and Ramadi were the sorts of foreign terrorists who had come to Iraq, taken over towns, and started abusing and torturing the locals, killing kids, etc. They were so horrible to the Iraqis that the sheiks of Anbar province turned on them and allied with us to get rid of the AQ types.

    • avatarMister Fleas says:

      “Kyle famously said he felt no remorse for the 160+ people he had to kill in the line of duty…”

      Let me give you a clue as to why he felt no remorse. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/torture-al-qaeda-style

      Funny how you condemn a selfless hero, but you call people who remove eyes, drag people to death behind cars, burn people with blowtorches, etc., etc., and I quote, “people he killed were defending their country/way of life”.

      “I think he was a badass and a great American but in all likelihood he enjoyed killing those Taliban”
      HAHAHAHAHA!!! You called them Taliban! You may want to read up on the conflict before replying.

  29. avatarAharon says:

    RP is very pro gun rights. RP is very anti-war. I took this comment off RP’s website:

    harleydavidson:
    “If you did your research, Ron Paul called Chris Kyle an American hero. When he said living by the sword and being killed by the sword, he is basically criticizing our government for being involved in too many war fronts. And when he said treating PTSD at the firing range is not right, he was referring to the shooter. Now, I think we can all agree intellectually that allowing a person with PTSD at the shooting range is suicidal.”

  30. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:
  31. avatarSwobard says:

    What the hell am I reading? Neither Paul nor his staff have claimed that Paul’s Twitter account was hacked; neither Paul nor his staff have claimed the words were written by some poorly supervised underling – yet resident Paulites are claiming both excuses on his behalf? Grow up and admit RP has always had a lunatic side to his personality and policies. I respect much of his platform, but also recognize the loose cannon mode in which he has long operated.
    That lunatic side has surfaced again, and Paulites are rushing to defend their hero before he defends himself. Give it a rest!

  32. avatarRalph says:

    That doesn’t sound like anything Ron Paul would say — or tweet. OTOH, RP is nuts or maybe senile, so you never know.

    • avatarSee This Also says:

      Ralph, I’m surprised you think RP is “nuts”. Many people (not including myself of course) would call the readers and writers of this blog “nuts”. Perhaps it’s due to a lack of understanding?

      One thing is for certain, as I mentioned earlier; when it comes to fighting for true personal liberty, including no-bull gun rights, no politician within the past several decades if not longer fights or has fought harder than Ron Paul.

  33. avatarVigilantis says:

    If the forces of the US military were actually protecting the constitution, or the lives of American citizens, or their rights, they wouldn’t be in occupying Afghanistan, they’d be occupying Washington.

    Chris Kyle was a soldier. He killed people for money, that was his job. I’m not denying that sometimes that’s necessary, but the man was no angel. Moreover, taking trained killers suffering from PTSD to a shooting range is not the brightest idea I ever heard of.

    Oh, and before it comes up, I’ve voted for Ron Paul precisely zero times.

    • avatarAharon says:

      Good comments. The military, as always, has only taken action against America’s supposedly foreign enemies and not the domestic ones in government that are tearing apart the US Constitution, destroying the US currency, and transforming America into a police-nanny state.

  34. avatarC says:

    You guys are brainwashed if you think the military today is fighting for the constitution or our freedoms. Keep feeding the beast and it will eventually turn on you.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      When the draft ended during Vietnam, the mass anti-war rallies ended. An all-volunteer army sounds great, until its skills are turned to other purposes, and the military-industrial complex says to every commodity user, “sure, we can go ‘protect’ that.” The medical-welfare complex and the military-industrial complex have fairly well carved up the economy and consume all the tax revenue. The CBO estimates that the lifetime value of your Soc Sec benefit and your Medicare (to the docs) benefit are of about equal value, 500 K each. They’re farming YOU. It’s too late to get off easy. The bills are on the books and they’re only growing. No wonder the gov wants the AR’s back. Laugh.

  35. avatarmatt says:

    picking off insurgents, thereby saving the lives of his fellow servicemen and -women —

    How is murdering people who are doing nothing more than exercising their right to bear arms, equate to saving the lives of his fellow servicemen. Hyperbole much?

    deserved to be shot in cold blood. Which apparently means everyone who’s ever gone through basic and fought in a war in one of the US armed forces deserves a similar fate.

    Well if youre a Christian, then yes, see Revelations 13:10

    are willing to put their lives on the line to defend the Constitution, their fellow citizens and the freedoms they enjoy.

    When was any of those things threatened by the governments of Afghanistan or Iraq? Oh yeah they weren’t.

    Maybe it’s time for someone to take the keyboard and smartphone away from the angry old man before he really embarrasses himself.

    Maybe its time the Jews stop supporting wars which do nothing other than to oppress Muslim nations.

    • avatarSammy says:

      Yea why ya botherin’ the religion of peace?

    • avatarJericho941 says:

      “How is murdering people who are doing nothing more than exercising their right to bear arms, equate to saving the lives of his fellow servicemen. Hyperbole much?”

      There’s bearing arms, and there’s blowing up women and children going about their business in the markets. The insurgents were not innocents.

      • avatarmatt says:

        How did he know those people in particular were blowing anyone up? And if they did know that with certainty, why where they not arrested and subjected to the legal process? Extra-judicial executions are only used when you know that you can not try them in a court of law because you lack evidence.

    • avatarJuliesa says:

      Many of the people he was shooting were the types who killed local Iraqis for voting or drinking alcohol. Think AQ head choppers.

    • avatarMister Fleas says:

      “How is murdering people who are doing nothing more than exercising their right to bear arms, equate to saving the lives of his fellow servicemen. Hyperbole much?”
      Yes matt, they were doing nothing more than exercising their right to bear arms. The beheading videos, those people were exercising their right to bear arms by slowly sawing off their captives’ heads.

      “Maybe its time the Jews stop supporting wars which do nothing other than to oppress Muslim nations.”
      You hear that Jews?!? Stop opressing Saudi Arabia!
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html
      “Saudi textbooks claimed by them to have been sanitized of antisemitism still call Jews apes (and Christians swine); demand that students avoid and not befriend Jews; claim that Jews worship the devil; and encourage Muslims to engage in Jihad to vanquish Jews.”

      • avatarmatt says:

        When where we (or anyone else) at war with Saudi Arabia?

        And the Saudis arent the only ones who teach anti-semitism, Christianity does so as well. Have you heard of Martin Luther of the Protestant Reformation? He is the same person who Martin Luther King Jr. is named after. He wrote a paper titled “On The Jews And Their Lies” in which he called for the enslavement of the Jews.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          The difference, dear matt, is that while it’s true that certain parts of Christianity did teach antisemitism, the Saudis still do. You say “Christianity does so as well” in the present tense, as if it’s a widespread, common thing in the present day. The only Christian churches that teach antisemitism today are fringe groups like Westboro and white supremacist groups that cloak their racial hatred in scripture. Martin Luther wrote that treatise in the 1500′s, and in the intervening five hundred years pretty much all of Christianity has disavowed those parts of Luther’s writings and disassociated themselves from them. I guess if we wait another 500 years what the Saudis are still doing right now will be OK, too.

  36. avatarDisenfranchised Veteran says:

    This mental health issue is going to disenfranchise a lot of veterans who want to or need to seek help for PTSD and depression after deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. I am a veteran and I probably have PTSD. I do not want to lose my guns, so there is no way in hell I am going to ask for help now that there is a witch hunt for anyone who has a “mental illness.” Just what is a “mental illness” exactly and who gets to decide who is “stable” and “unstable”? I will just deal with it myself because the VA is certainly not my friend when it comes to my continued ownership of guns.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      I recommend seeing a private psychologist or psychiatrist and not mentioning that you have firearms. Please get help, you owe it to yourself and to those around you.

  37. avatarSmaj says:

    Paul is either insane or has full-on dementia and should be put away.

  38. avatarSammy says:

    Sorry, as of now, R.P. is on the CTD list as far as I’m concerned.

  39. avatarDaniel says:

    It’s comments like this that make keep Paul from ever being a serious contender for anything outside of Texas. I’m the modern equivalent of an isolationist and even I think this is way out there. If this is how he feels about our soldiers, then why would any thinking person put him in charge of the military? Surely he can’t have written this.

  40. avatarTangledThorns says:

    So for the fools that wasted their vote(s) on Ron Paul I hope you finally realize why he never wins the GOP presidential primary. The Ron Paul love affair must come at an end now.

  41. avatarPhilthegardner says:

    Is it 1973 again instead of 2013? Seems that you can’t be “cool” unless you spit on the uniform of some “baby-killer”

  42. avatarduke nukem says:

    what the hell happen to ron paul… oh thats righr hes old and cenile.

  43. avatarLTC F says:

    Ron Paul was an Air Force OB/GYN who spent his military career delivering babies fathered by men who actually fought for their country. It doesn’t surprise me that this small, bitter man, feels inadequate and lashes out at actual combat veterans.

  44. avatarGreg says:

    While I agree with the anti-war stance as we’re spending out treasure burdening our grandchildren with over whelming debt and fighting another war for people who hold none of our values, I disagree with this statement. This is disgusting and extremely disrespectful. While I disagree with the war Chris Kyle is an American hero who pledged everything to defend us and he did it honorably. He did not deserve to die like this. He did not make his living by the sword, sorry no, he made his living by defending liberty and our country.
    I maybe the lone voice but I also feel deep sympathy for the shooter and his family. He was suffering from PTSD and not getting the proper care from the govt. that send him to war. His family suffers and he must be too because I don’t believe he was “right” when he commited this act. This story is sad all the way around and hurling stupid comments doesn’t help.

  45. avatarMichael B. says:

    Don’t agree with the war and I generally agree with Ron Paul (although I think he’s ab it too moderate from time to time) but this was out of line. All I know of Chris Kyle was what I saw on TV. He claimed to have punched an elderly man, Jesse Ventura (who is kind of nutty), in the face and came off as bit of a jerk. For what it’s worth, the story sounded completely fake. In any case, it doesn’t matter.

    It’s not good to dance in the blood of others and trot out a tired old platitude. It’s a bit nonsensical and definitely a sign of poor taste, I think.

  46. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    I know plenty of SF guys, Army Rangers, and others who respected Chris Kyle, but also knew that he was a mercenary and was given very lax ROE (Rules of Engagement) and was known to shot anything that moved in his designated kill box (women, children, elderly, even dogs). I would hardly call that honorable nor noble.

    Any of the intelligent Spec Ops guys I ever came across were more worried about the number of lives they saved rather than the body count they racked up. And they would also never brag about the people they killed!

    And how can anyone argue that it’s completely moronic to try to treat PTSD at a gun range? It’s like trying to treat a rape victim by taking her to a party or a bar so she can get hit on!

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I call bullshit on your entire first paragraph.

      “Women, children, elderly and dogs, oh my!”

      And let’s be clear: I’m not saying that what you said is bullshit; I’m saying that you are bullshit.

      • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

        You seem to know nothing of how snipers funciton in modern warfare. And you are completely ignorant of the stray dog problem in Iraq…they are everywhere and some snipers really liked to shoot them because they it was a fun way practice/zero their rifle.

        But go ahead and be a jackass and worship someones “body count”.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I’m not worshiping anyone’s body count. My feelings (whatever they may be) about Chris Kyle and my reply to your statement are completely independent operations. My reaction would be the same no matter who you were talking about. If you’re going to call someone kill-happy, dishonorable, and ignoble, give a verifiable citation or shut the hell up.

      • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

        On page 79 of his own book, Chris Kyle describes the Rules of Engagement that his unit followed when they were deployed to Shatt al-Arab, a river on the Iraq-Iran border:

        “Our ROEs when the war kicked off were pretty simple: If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ‘em. Kill every male you see. That wasn’t the official language, but that was the idea.”

        Is this verifiable enough for you?

        Do you consider 65 to be elderly? Or 16 to be a child?

        Would you call this honorable or noble?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          That sounds like a paraphrased ROE for a deployment to a very specific location, and I don’t see anything about women, or children, or dogs. And no, a 16 year old is not a child, especially not in a near-third world agrarian society. With regards to familial and other responsibilities, that 16 year old was probably more of an adult at twelve than most people in this country are between 18 and 20.

        • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

          You’re right…I bet Chris Kyle was checking ID’s through his scope.

          You death cult worshippers need to get a grip and realize that war is hell, but idolizing a man because of the number of people he killed is just sick!

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Who said anything about checking ID’s? You brought up ages, not me. You’re the one that said “women, children, elderly, even dogs,” not me. I have yet to see you provide a citation for your bullshit. You’re the one who called him dishonorable and ignoble, not me.

          I’m not idolizing him because of how many people he killed. I’m not idolizing him at all. He was a soldier, he did what soldiers do. I’m saying that if you’re going to drag someone through the mud, do it with verifiable facts, not assumptions based in fantasy. You say that idolizing based on body count is sick, and I counter that denigrating based on your own imagination is no different.

        • avatarpat says:

          Sleeper: these were not people he killed, they were the murderers of civilians.

    • avatarSammy says:

      Would you please back up your allegations with some facts. Real easy to attack a person that cannot respond. Chief Kyle had more citations and medals than you have teeth in your mouth. At best you comments are unsubstantiated here say. And not to put too fine a point on this part, Patton had the only reasonable rule for engagement, “Kill the enemy”.

      • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

        Hows about straight from the horse’s mouth!

        On page 79 of his own book, Chris Kyle describes the Rules of Engagement that his unit followed when they were deployed to Shatt al-Arab, a river on the Iraq-Iran border:

        “Our ROEs when the war kicked off were pretty simple: If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ‘em. Kill every male you see. That wasn’t the official language, but that was the idea.”

      • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

        “Kill the enemy” Patton was a true American hero and his ROE works perfectly in a conventional war.

        But I would cannot say that “Kill every male you see” is sound ROE in an unconventional war when combating insurgents.

        My father served in the SF in Vietnam in ’70-’71 and lived with the Montenyards in Vietnam and Cambodia. He’ll tell you that if you go in guns blazing, you’re only setting yourself up for failure and uprising of the populace. No one is going to play nice with you if you kill their brother, father, son, uncle, grandfather, etc.

        You have to win hearts and minds, not play shoot ‘em up and rack up a body count!

        • avatarpat says:

          Again, it was the terrorists who swarmed in from the other craphole countries and murdered the Iraqi citizenry in the name of ‘Islamism’, not the coalion troops.

  47. avatarPrivacy Freak says:

    Please consider the contents of this article, before passing judgement on Ron Paul’s comments…

    http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/02/pseudo-courage-of-chris-kyle.html

    Shooting people and winning medals of “honor” for it doesn’t make a person great. Defending liberty does. Ron Paul is a great man; a true patriot indeed.

    Yes, I am a gun owner like the rest of you.

  48. avatarKKB says:

    Just Won Pol going off the deep end again. I mean, sinking lower. He went off the deep end a long time ago.

    Oddly enough, Rand Paul seems okay. Step-son maybe?

Leave a Reply

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