Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind Of Violence

This makes so much sense, I can't wait to hear the libtard statists respond:

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.

The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.

While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.

Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided "security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...-kind-violence

Ron Paul is about as relevant as you are Whiny.

The one fact overlooked by all is the government is forced to act when individuals won't use common sense.Most laws are passed when people won't protect themselves.

Do you have an example of that, Ekim? Of government being forced to act?

Do you have an example of that, Ekim? Of government being forced to act? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Car insurance home insurance seat belts want some more?

How was government forced to act in those cases? Sounds to me like they were drumming up business for the insurance industry. Fact is, government NEVER has to act. You treat government as something separate from yourself. It is supposed to be us. It isn't anymore.

Of course, there are some good things that ought to be done. If states want to require their citizens to have car insurance, that's probably good. But government wasn't forced there. You've made some good arguments for state's rights.

But how that address the problem that the US is the most spied upon country in the world by its own government? Is government forced to do that? Who is the government trying to protect if they monitor every movement and every word? And can we still call ourselves a free country after that?

If you can't figure it out I can't help you on this one. States aren't government?Just the Fed.

If you can't figure it out I can't help you on this one. States aren't government?Just the Fed. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

State governments are not governments to these State Rights Nuts, they are Angels in disguise. The Federal Government is the Devil in disguise. I've never understood that logic. If say the Federal Government says that it is up to the woman to decide if she wants to have an abortion...these State Right Guys cry like a baby. Pun intended. Yet they say they want each person to have more control over their own life and choices!

Read the 10th Amendment. It's designed to keep the Federal government under control. Dealing with the state governments is a different matter. They are closer to the people, and would be more responsive without so many mandates from the federal government.

State governments are not governments to these State Rights Nuts, they are Angels in disguise. The Federal Government is the Devil in disguise. I've never understood that logic. If say the Federal Government says that it is up to the woman to decide if she wants to have an abortion...these State Right Guys cry like a baby. Pun intended. Yet they say they want each person to have more control over their own life and choices! Originally Posted by WTF

Do we really even need to have individual states anymore? If we are going to just give the federal government ultimate authority and law making capability, why the need for the states? To take that thought further, why would we need any local government? Mayors, city councils, etc?

I'm not advocating any of that, just thinking out loud here.

My understanding of the Constitution is that we are a republic of states and if you do not like the state you are living in, you can move to another state and nobody can stop you.

Laws are passed to exercise control of one group of individuals over another. The really sad part is that it only takes a very small fraction of those wanting control to take it from a much larger group.

I love sunset laws. No law should outlive the term of the group that passed it. Makes it so much easier to get rid of the bad laws..

Please, assholes, find somewhere better to live.

That's your solution, eh, Assup? Eliminate dissent. Accept no opinions other than your own. And then you get mad when I call you an enemy of freedom. Go figure.

And then you get mad when I call you an enemy of freedom. Go figure. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

StupidOldFart, you call him "an enemy of freedom." Yet he actually wore "freedom's" uniform.

Have you?

Please, assholes, find somewhere better to live. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I would like nothing better. Unfortunately Congress passed the Reed Amendment, which bars entry to the USA to any individual who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States. While the law largely hasn't been enforced, if someone expatriates he should do so knowing he may never be allowed back in the U.S., regardless of family ties. If your mother is lying in a hospital on her death bed you're fucked.

In addition, you must pay an exit tax before you can renounce citizenship. I can't afford the exit tax.

Chica Chaser was correct in his post, that you criticized. Politicians do this sort of thing not to raise revenue -- the amount in question is negligible compared to the federal budget -- but because they're vindictive and because they want people under their thumb. They want to screw us and they want us to damn well know they're the bosses and we're their slaves.