Liberty Given True Meaning When Supported Without Exception

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.

Add New Comment

Showing 90 of 90 comments

    • Dr. Ron Paul…a true statesman…not a statist…and the man who should be the current President of the United States.

    • libadvsor

      Well said.  Ron Paul has had it right for 30 or more years.  what a pity that conventional GOP leadership allowed Mitt Romney to be a temporary leader who failed miserably.  Rand Paul and the T Party has to hold things together until the Conservative Party has the opportunity to realistically let free markets take over with some good governmental guidance.

    • I watched TV talk shows on Saturday and heard endless calls for more restrictive gun control as the remedy for the Sandy Hook shooting.  Then came TV ads for the movie Django where revengeful racial linked killing runs rampant and then a ad for Dexter the cool serial killer. These TV people are absolutely insane hypocrites – we need to boycott every thing they promote.

    • Kevin Shanholtzer

       While I would not allow my child to watch Dexter, I would certainly not attempt to shut it down via boycotting. This would just be a form of societal censorship. Much less exertion is required for simply changing the channel; even less for never having it on the television. I doubt the station you watched aired an ad for Django and Dexter following the TV talk shows you mention. Lastly, I watch and enjoy Dexter, yet it has no influence over my feelings about my fellow man. Blaming a fictional show for killing someone is a falsehood.

    • Jeremy Nimmo

      Societal pressure was the key to the maintenance of a decent society before it was ruined in the late 60’s- early 70’s.

      Private action is not censorship.

  • danielwpeer

     You do realize Showtime has political talk shows, right? (Further, you do realize Showtime is owned by CBS, right?) And, is it not hypocritical to profit from stories glorifying murder and gun-assisted vigilantism while claiming we need to stop gun violence?

    You’re absolutely right about one thing:blaming a show for a person’s actions is not a valid argument, but it just has little to do with the conversation. The question is: do you want to support the hypocritical, liberal network whose news and talk programs vilify guns and gun ownership?

  •  amen!!  already have…since 1994

  • I’m not sure how bad the feds want a gun control fight. Personally I think the politicians and the media are frantic to makes the murders about anything but SSRI “medications” 90% of all school shootings are linked to these drugs (rxisk dot org) They are willing to do whatever it takes to protect big pharma profits.

  • Aaron Mitschke

     Yes, Sir… Big Profit, and kids running around with guns killing people, thinking they are playing a video game… For big pharma, the Government, and the FDA, collateral damage is A OK

  • Thank you Dr. Paul, for your inspiration and voluminous contribution to the philosophy of liberty and to the educating of the next generation on the principles of freedom. I met you in DC about 5 years ago at a rally as you were campaigning and then at the JBS 50 year celebration in Wisconsin. I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. It is sad to see you go, but I’m sure the C4Liberty will provide you another, perhaps more meaningful, voice for freedom and the Constitution. God Bless you sir.

  • DanHe777

     “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”                                                   BENJAMIN FRANKLIN November 11, 1755

  • Dear Congressman Paul;

    To a significant degree, we already are living in an Orwellian police state.
    It is the culture that must be changed.  We do not need nor deserve more anti gun laws, surveillance cameras, armed guards, dogs, x-ray scanners, GPS, spy satellites – except to watch the enemies of America.   We certainly do not need or want them to spy on or disarm law abiding Americans.

    Take the guns away from the criminals and the mentally impaired, and leave the rest of us alone.   The main reason Americans want their guns and the Second Amendment, is that the vast majority distrusts the federal government so much, that there is real fear that civilian disarmament would open the door for dictatorship and a police state.  Ask ordinary common citizens on our streets and they will freely tell you the same things I wrote in this letter.

    Respectfully yours,

    Dale Summitt
    Rockport, TX

  • DonGates

    Dr. Paul,

    I agree that freedom and safety does not come from government, but from belief in and respect for the rule of law. As this breaks down additional laws only result in loss of freedoms for the law abiding without additional safety. Gun free zones created a fantasy safe zone. Government caused distortion leads to a rush for more laws to try and correct the distortions. Anybody notice a freedom destroying loop?

    I do not support a government run school safety officer program. I do support local school boards deciding if this makes sense for them. I do believe this is an effective and reasonable choice to increase safety without government intrusion. Just like all families, businesses, and individuals decide if keeping firearms enhances their safety at home, work, or play.

    Thank you for your service.

    Dr. Don Gates

  • Joe Burke

    Once again the lone voice of reason is Ron Paul.

  • My thoughts exactly, this government is better at killing than A. Lanza.

  • Amen Ron, a good take on Liberties and Government over reach, and I learned a new word today, God Bless and Merry Christmas

  • Bill

    Our despotism is by oligarchy, by private professional political party duopoly by the elite; by committee, and policy, and majority. Either the People enslave their government, or government will enslave the People.

  • happel

    Dr. Paul as eloquent as always. Is it possible that forces are deliberately behind these random ‘lone-gunman’ shootings? Yes, I realize that this sounds like crazy-talk and being a rational and objective person, it seems incredibly unlikely. In the aftermath of 9/11, having such a personal, emotional attachment to the WTC, I would have never considered there were forces involved that knew about and possibly contributed to those horrendous events. WTC #7, as much evidence being exposed by engineers can not have collapsed due to the circumstances (as does it seem unlikely the twin towers would have, either.) That set of actions set upon the American people the vile PATRIOT Act. No other document has done so much to quietly and slowly dismantle the US Constitution. These seemingly random and awful occurrences of shootings, where multiple eyewitnesses are seeing more than one shooter, are potentially the emotional and psychological framework to assist in further restricting the Constitution. Question everything…always.

  • danielwpeer

     Chester, do you realize that what your just said doesn’t even begin to tackle to problem? Why do we need to do anything about guns? Why not something about the medications this man was on? Never mind the fact that the gunman in Newtown was found with 2 handguns in his possession – the rifle was in his car and wasn’t used. Banning assault rifles won’t stop this issue.

  • Once again, Dr. Paul is the only voice in Congress to remind the American people that isolated events do not warrant a butchery of the Constitution and the freedoms it has blessed us with. Truly the Ben Franklin of our age.

  • Aaron Mitschke

    The model for preventing violence should be looked at the law that Kennesaw, Georgia has… According to what I have read, a gun has to be in every house, and somebody trained to use it, unless you have objections for whatever reason… If I’m not mistaken, there has only been one murder and one rape there since 1982… Where I live in Montana, everybody has guns, and everybody knows it… Houses rarely get broke into here… The only shooting happens at the range… An Armed Society is a Polite Society… I’m ordering more Ron Paul Revolution stickers, I get thumbs up or good comments all the time

  • ron caravaggio

    The anti-gun left are not in favor of armed guards or armed teachers, or even metal detectors in schools.  The only reason that they oppose these measures is that they know they will work.  If years go by without another tragic school shooting, there will be no talk of gun control.  They just want gun laws passed, then they can sit back and anxiously wait for the next school shooting so more laws can be passed.  After enough shootings, they will eventually be able to ban guns altogether.  They have no interest at all in saving lives.  It’s all about pushing a political agenda, no matter how many kids have to die in the process.

  • Colleen Abbott

    Bravo! My sentiments exactly, no need for me to add a thing for this says it all!

  • William Ohaire

    Personally I do not want the government to become involved.  we should be able to police ourselves.  A lot better than the Government.

  • Intellectual Awakening! Spread the words of wisdom!

  • I wish others would think like this Man……Thanks Ron….

  • I agree 1000% Dr. Paul….Kudos to you sir, and keep up the good fight, we need you now more than ever! Bless you sir!

  • CaseySM

    One can be free or one can be safe.  One cannot be free and safe.  However, one must be free to protect oneself and those nearby.

    Thank you Mr. Paul.  Your clarity is undeniable.

  • danielwpeer

     How does any of that make him a hypocrite? You have a reasonable argument, ie that people and things of value are guarded by armed men for good reason. However, you couldn’t have said it more poorly

  • danielwpeer

     On what grounds?

  • danielwpeer

    Freedom is not free and it has its perils. If you want to be free from government imposed tyranny, if you want to be able to defend yourself and your family in the worst case scenario, if you want to defend your home and your family from an intruder before the police arrive (A lot can happen in 10 minutes), then you need guns that you are free to own and ammo to fire. If you can’t have those things, what recourse does an average person have against criminals? If you value your freedom, you should value gun ownership. You can always move to England – they don’t allow people to own guns there.

  • How fortunate would we be with Dr. Ron Paul as president.

  • Ron Paul, a doctor and statesman and most like “Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson  and many others who professed the Paul doctrine.
    I know it is whistling in the dark to hope Dr. Paul could be president-this would be impossible as the guns rather than being wielded by we the law biding but the government that would take our guns so that we would remain targets for the criminals who now have guns which no law could prohibit, would themselves snuff this man if he were ever to ascend to the presidency of this “US”, Unfortunately for us, this will never happen.  Lou Morelli

  • Brilliant !
    If they prescribed ” Meditation ” instead of psychopathic ” Medication “; we would not have this mass murder problem.

  • From a libertarian perspective the government doesn’t need
    to mandate armed teachers, it just has to quit prohibiting them. The first U.S.
    “gun-free school zones” act was passed in 1990. We have had 22 years and
    way too much evidence of how well victim disarmament works. We can add to that
    the experience of numerous mass school killings in Europe, and now the mass
    stabbings in China.

     

    It’s past time to try something different.

  • SeanCollins_AmericanSituation

    My similar take: “The consensus after Newtown: let’s curtail freedom” http://americansituation.com/2…

  • As usual, I disagree with Paul.

  • littlesmoke

    This is the most sensible response to the situation I have heard! Should have elected this guy POTUS

  • Still so sad Ron Paul couldn’t have been our president, for what a great one he would be.

  • RP has a BIG problem.  He was gifted with too much common sense.  The fools on capital hill just can’t relate.  Arrrrgggggg!!!  We are going to crash and burn because the IDIOTS in Washington are focused on their own puppet-master-pleasing, boot-licking agendas.  It
    was good. Thanks Pat. Made this video just for you who appreciate our
    2nd amendments rights. Enjoy, leave a comment and think about
    subscribing. Your friend in the fight against this TYRANNICAL
    Government! Brian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?…

  •  Sir, May I ask if there will be any further inquiry on the two men arrested outside the school?

  • Rocko19

    It’s been reported Pit Bulls kill more kids under the age of four then guns, ever..
    Bloomberg has ‘armed” security of four with him at all times…I will call and tell his office to take away their guns, what’s good for the goose..
    .

  • Rocko19

    Sarah Palin on her sarahpac, had by far the best thoughts on Sandy, I have heard them all…Palin has held true to her believes for ever on all issues.A truly remarkable Classy Lady..What a record in Public Office, this lady has had, at one point, after two years as Gov an approval ratting that set a record of 93% ~ No other Gov ever has had an approval ratting over, think it was 75%,…..Would love to see her run for president in 2016 ~ No one has ever been vetted like Palin, after 25,000 emails exposed, she come out smelling like a ROSE..After Allen West is fully vetted and if comes out clean, would like to see him as Palin’s VP  …West, has served this country for over twenty years in Harms-Way and came out as Col…..In my book, he his a hero…Can’t stand to hear the names of Rubio, a Young Punk that has done nothing for this country but take and the me,me, me, man, Christie…No way either of them should be mentioned, even as VP…

  • I am not an advocate of Paul’s philosophy but I concede he nailed it with this piece. Well-written.

  • This is well-written. As somebody who doesn’t agree with Paul on most issues, I will concede that he nails this one.

  • problem: killing inside “Gun Free Zones”
    solution: Ban on “Gun Free Zones”
    cost:  zero dollars

  • Although I am not a fan of airport personal inspections, I much rather have them than to loose my life because some nut gets on a plane with me and blows it out of the sky. I also feel that assualt weapons like the AR-15, mac10 I think should be used by the military or law enforcement only, not private citizens. Consequently I am in favor of restricting the sales of those weapons. It is said that guns don’t kill people, people kill people kill people, it follows that it is the people who have the guns who are doing the killing. If we restrict access to these most dangerous of weapons, we then have a better chance of reducing the some of the needless killings. Is this a fool proof plan? No but we need to start somewhere. That is my opinion

  • Bob in Boston

    All those restrictions were already in place – how did they work? The answer? They did nothing! You can’t stop criminals by disarming law abiding citizens!

  • alphazu

    A great many folks will not appreciate your all to logical “common sense”.  Thank you for “tellin it like it is”, again.

  • Bill, Organic farmer. Seminary student.

    Well said. It is particularly distrubing to see “conservatives” advocating federally funded armed guards in every school, which is just another expansion of the police state.

  • Mike Massey

    The GOP should embrace Paul’s stance and adopt them as the center of the party’s philosophy.

    The message will sell to the public, particularly if the messengers are not having to fight established republican money and power.

  • Phillip

    I re-posted this in the Lewiston Idaho Tribune on-line comments section.. already got several converts….sorry I didn’t do that years ago.

  • Richard Long

    Ron Paul, you are a hypocrite. Tell me armed guards will not protect.  The President is guarded with armed guards, anything of value is guarded,  Apparently our children are of no value.These senseless killings are done by mentally dysfunctional individuals, they need to be fixed. I always thought you were a good Representative but now the truth comes out.You will always lose my vote!

  • Brooke Stevens

    Come on, Ron, you’re brilliant when you talk about war but this is where you lose it. Shouldn’t we all be allowed to carry guns that shoot small nuclear weapons? Sure, why not, if you follow your theory out, it ain’t the govt that’s there to protect us, it’s all of the rest of us, so if we all just have a rapid fire machine gun that sprays nuclear bullets and contaminates the entire state of Ct, well, we’ll all be even safer. I live next door to the shooting and my eleven year old daughter has been sleeping in our room ever since it happened and she’s terrified of going to school. My father, a Captain in World War II, highly decorated, died in 2001 and he said: all the arming of America is going to come to mayhem sooner than later, more and more school shootings or the killing of first responders, and a bunch of kooks calling for even more guns. Dr. Paul, without people like my father, you wouldn’t be here to talk about this crap. Get the machine guns and the semi-auto’s the hell out of people’s hands or work as a cop for a while and face these and you’ll see, clear as day, that more guns don’t equal fewer shooters. Yes, it works to outlaw things at times. My word, shame on you for allowing a theory with merit to utterly distort the common sense that most children understand.

  • Bob in Boston

    You realize that Dr Paul is both a veteran and a doctor (so he knows a little bit about shooting victims) right?

  • I have always supported you.

    Nevertheless; common sense dictates that allowing Americans easy access to military WEAPONS of MASS MURDER merely arms the psychos to commit these horrendous mass murders. And this is exactly what has happened. These weapons serve no purpose for the sane; but only for the insane.

    The U.S. should have long since banned military weapons for the hands of psychos.

    Therefore; I fully support the Democrats’ initiative to –  finally – ban these weapons.

    It is psychotic not to do so.

  • Kevin Shanholtzer

    I agree with almost everything here. I also wish the GOP had treated Dr. Paul with deserved respect. However, I disagree with ensuring religion is part of the family. While there are certainly many good people involved with religion, belief in some fabricated deity is a lie I do not care to impart to children. I also disagree with threatening children with the image of Hell and telling them they are born in sin. These things are primitive fears and misguided attempts at controlling behavior.

  • HeySaum

    Always a fan of your method, reason, and resolve, but if our government of the people, by the people, and for the people can remove from society those things that serve no purpose but profit, yet hurt the people who give our country its life, then it has a responsibility to do so. Encourage concealed carry and put a hand gun in every home, but do not be a slave to an industry trying to sell you weapons who’s devestation has no place in civil society. Do not mistake capitalist duping for free society.

  • ron caravaggio

    Alcohol serves no purpose but profit, and it destroys more lives than guns do.  Should we ban it?  Most Americans, including myself, would say that would be ridiculous to ban alcohol just because there are those who do not handle it responsibly.  I know you will say that’s not the same thing.  Actually, it is the exact same thing. The only difference is that guns are a political issue.  Alcohol is not.  If we could just get politics out of the picture, common sense would prevail.

  • TPHEALER

    TRUE Liberty means the right to control ones own body, which means easy access to aborting non-consensual pregnancies at will.

  • KevinIvey

    I’ll agree more when my child is out of school. Until then, I’d prefer he be protected just as the Prez’ girls with the 11 armed guards at their school.

  • Mr_Galt

    Spot-on Congressman.

  • bbbbbbbbhhhhhhh

    A true Free American should have the right to protect them self ,by being able to bear arms,especially if they feel threatened. I served my country overseas during the” Cold  War” and have also been a law abiding Tax payer for over 20 years, but in the state of Ma. I am denied the right ,by local Police, because of a Disturbed neighbor who has used the Court System to enforce a Harassment Order Against me for the last 3 years ,with no Reason, or evidence that I have ever done anything other than to speak up for myself and Family. I have been Harassed ,as well as my Family for over 5 years and will just have to wait for Karma to kick in,because the Local and State Government have become a tool of the Oppressor. I even have Video tape evidence ,that the Police have agreed was clear destruction of my property,and still the Court refuses to step up for the Law abiding and instead stand behind to oppressors.   Welcome To Hanson, Ma.02341

  • Gctd77
    I agree with B.W. I boycotted TV entirely. Shut the cable off – years now – don’t miss it.

    I don’t mean to sound like I’m panning for a conspiracy, but I find it strange that these things seem to happen on the heels of some related legislation. There was a UN arms trade treaty being considered simultaneously. Remember the BP accident ? What else was on the shelf at that time ? Either way, I find it strange that a teacher would leave her weapons accessible to her known mentally ill son. I find it strange that this son could have been, as reported, chillingly accurate. That take lots of practice, even at close range. Did she help him practice ? Buy his range-time and ammo ? Were there powder burns indicating “point blank” discharge ? And now, everyone is dead who could have shed some light on these matters. Nearby towns were known for occult activity a few decades ago. Pentagrams, animal sacrifice remains, things like that found. Was this ritualistic ? Was he on anti-depressants ? Some have an effect of removing your sense of consequences.

  • I’ve never been a huge fan of Ron Paul but I tend to agree with him on this one…we should allow teachers or school officials trained, certified and allowed to carry concealed to handle this, not the government as they mess everything up.

  • redbaron616

    Dr. Paul, I certainly hope you continue to reach out with your common sense after you step down in January. Your well-thought-out commentaries will be sorely missed. Why isn’t anyone else on Capitol Hill think like this?

  • Bill197511

    Dr. Paul nails it once again, tells the truth and offers real solutions.  How refreshingly different!  He got my vote all the way through the elections.  If the people who can handle the truth were a majority, Ron Paul would have been elected.

  • Gctd77

    Govt surveillance would be cameras, microphones and/or tracking devices in cars, buses, highways, work-place, homes, and street corners. Monitoring of your daily habits. Things that could be used by both a good govt, or an oppressive one that could emerge later. But, no one looks at the armed guards driving a Brinks truck and thinks its Orwellian. Also, just because someone works for the fed doesn’t automatically make him a control-freak. Many are decent people, just doing their job. But yes, I do understand how a system can take on a life of its own, above and beyond anyone’s intent, and become counterproductive to freedom, and even its own purpose. Yet, I see no harm in a chain-link fence and a guarded gate around schools, and a ‘no one in’ policy, merely allowed to be established at the local level. I see no harm in having a few armed teachers or administrators. Nothing needs to be federally mandated or controlled, just allowed for schools, PTA’s, and local govt to set-up. Many gun store owners and personnel would likely volunteer time. I think the NRA was suggesting a model that they, not the govt, would design and finance for schools that want it. I watched the video twice. Unless I missed something, I didn’t see any other suggestion. If this event had occurred during the colonial period, local farmers and blacksmiths would have likely volunteered to guard the schools with their muskets.
    Btw: I was 25 miles from Sandy Hook. I was armed. I can also vouch for how difficult it is to get a pistol permit in Ct.

  • Gctd77

    I am a fan and agree with Ron Paul, in that, its not the federal governments job to secure us from all tragedy as it would surely be an impossible task without Orwellian support. Yet we still have police, at least trying to do this, every day. Does anyone say we shouldn’t have them ? Where is the line drawn ? I agree that we need to commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society, but is that to negate even local solutions that could be had ? Rebuilding sounds like a lengthy process as not only segments of society, but also govt, seem to have little use for morality, or notions of a higher law anymore. They’d rather have reason-based morality, though, it fails, as well as any other. Look at that flash game the NRA pointed out; “kindergarten killer”, or something like that. The govt didn’t make that – some warped-minded citizen did. If it were up to me, the person who made it would be in jail. Not because it may, or may not cause a copy-cat crime, but because it so crosses the line of even deplorable taste as to become offensive in the highest order. I could get locked up if I merely wrote a death threat on a piece of paper. Yet, they get away with that ? Look at it this way; If the game characters had been, lets say, homosexuals, and the title of it were, (pardon) “queer killer”, it would have been shut down in 3 days, the maker arrested for hate crimes, and people chanting that it’ ‘encourages crime against gays’. Yet, not a thing on behalf of little children. 10 yrs it was on the web ? I don’t know, but was there any public outrage or advocacy against it ? People have protested against wars, and the drones of wars. But, not this flash game abomination apparently. Well, those are the priorities of our citizenry now. To change that would take some time, I think.

  • RadPower

    Radicals on both sides of the gun debate ought to be ashamed of themselves for not looking for some sort of middle ground here just as the congress should be ashamed of itself for unwillingness to compromise in other areas. Maybe the little girl in Newton who lost a brother got it right? She didn’t want to take away assault weapons. She just wanted them to be confined to the shooting range where they would stay and people could have fun using them.

    What would be the most sad in the wake of the Newton tragedy would to be do nothing and relegate this to just another big media event – loss of productive hours with nothing beneficial to society to come out of it. Why not some national investment in improving mental health care and recognition that mental health is as important as physical health and often inseparable. Even if nothing could have been done to prevent this tragedy, which I doubt, if the nation would start talking about mental health more instead of continuing to relegate it to taboo land that would be a good start.

    But, no, all the gun lovers and the gun haters have reflexively turned this into solely a referendum on guns.

    Surely, some good could come out of this if this nation began to think proactively instead of re-actively.

  • Hans26

    Your Statements ” more guns equals less crime and private gun ownership prevents many shootings leave me speachless. Hard-won experience in Australia proves the exact opposite. You are governed and protected by violent people besotted by power and a misplaced sense of rightiousness. You, the people, put this Government in power, allow and condone their violent actions.
    If you live by the gun you are likely to die by the gun.
    Hans Schmidt

  • Justin

    Thanks for everything you’ve done to further the message of Liberty. We must all do our part.

  • SAR84067, 35 – progressive, educated, hard working, loving father, graduate student, love to golf, ski, read, travel, and more.

    I would comment that the individual who committed this horrific crime, was not a criminal until he picked up a gun, and killed his mother.  The “suspect” in the Colorado shooting spree was “a quiet law abiding citizen” until he wired his apartment, and went on a shooting spree.  Criminals are going to get guns, but when individuals can carry out acts like this and partisan politics cloude the discssion, its rediculous.  In Colorado 12 people were killed.  If I were to say what are the two events in US history with the word “Massacre” attached how would you respond?
    Boston Massacre – 5 Colonial Citizens gunned down by the British
    St. Valentines Day Massacre – 7 killed in Chicago Gangland
    Total – 12.

    The recent shooting, more than doubles this.

    Columbine you say.  There would have been, in my opinion, many more victims had the two had access to AR-15’s.  High Capacity Mags etc…. They could easily conceal the AR-15’s better than the shotguns they used.

    It’s tragic in every way.

  • Amen Ron Paul!!!

  • Devon Sanchez

    Rational and respectful conclusions as always, Ron Paul.
    Above and beyond, I care to wonder if our society is only designed to react in this manner given the structure of our government, not the civilian society itself. The framers immortalized, to what I can only assume was their best effort and agreeable conclusion, in our Constitution the rights of the individual to be protected by the federal and state governments. But, there must be something that can be said about the thoroughness of the rights named, and the rights that are protected and reserved to only the persons in legislative power. Also, whether a written constitution truly restrains the authoritarian pursuit of concentrated power and the corruption that stems thereof or merely postpones the inevitability of that pursuit/goal.

  • Verminh8tor

    So long as the media in the West is controlled by “Hollywood” types, you will never be able to rebuild a civil society in the US. Your efforts would be better spent in joining with Dan Miller and the Texas Nationalist Movement in leading Texas out of the Union. State secession is the only answer to the tyranny at home and murder abroad brought to us by our corrupt Federal government.

  • The people of Connecticut should make the decision on what to do, not the federal government. What works for Connecticut may or may not work for other states.

    My proposed solution(s), correct me if I’m wrong:

    Ok, so a cop (or veteran) at every school (without warrantless physical searches or TSA style machinery), outreach centers so mentally unstable persons can get the help they need (taxpayer paid or private charity), preservation of gun liberties, gun education and training for teachers, staff, other civilians, parents (maybe children: ask parents for permission first), “civil/peace” education and outreach for teachers, staff, civilians, parents, children, so that kids can solve disputes and know when to ask for help without using violence.

    That way schools are safe, liberties are preserved, and the temptation top commit an act of violence is drastically reduced.

    Not sure what the full story is on how the shooter was able to get the guns. Did the parents fail to properly secure the weapons in a gun safe or other safe place? Did the shooter get the weapons from somewhere or somebody else? Did the parents even realize that their own son had mental problems? Did the parents even care?

    There not be a “magic bullet” to solve all of our problems, but we need to realize that children are only as good as their parents. If parents have no civility or responsibility, children will have no civility or responsibility. Somewhere down the road, parents have to take responsibility for the actions of their children.

  •  Doctor Paul is one of my personal heroes.  However, I do respectfully disagree with the idea that America is in moral decline.  The idea that “it was better back in the good old days” is a myth.

    Consider these flawed ideas:

    “Music makes people more violent”
    “Videogames make people more violent”
    “Guns makes people more violent”

    It
    seems everyone likes to find a scapegoat.  Something to blame, and
    something to legislate against.  You can’t blame a TV screen, you can’t
    blame a chunk of metal, and you can’t blame music.

    These tragedies are the fault of only the deranged criminals that inflict themselves upon society.

  • ron caravaggio

    I totally agree Vechs.  When I was growing up in the sixties, we had guns.  We also had violence on TV.  That was back in the day of the Westerns.  Cowboys were always shooting and killing, yet school shootings were unheard of.    Also, bear in mind that we had very few gun laws.  There was no “gun control”.  It kind of makes you wonder.

  • Doctor Paul is one of my personal heroes.  However, I do respectfully disagree with the idea that America is in moral decline.

    Consider these flawed ideas:

    “Music makes people more violent”
    “Videogames make people more violent”
    “Guns makes people more violent”

    It seems everyone likes to find a scapegoat.  Something to blame, and something to legislate against.  You can’t blame a TV screen, you can’t blame a chunk of metal, and you can’t blame music.

    These tragedies are the fault of only the deranged criminals that inflict themselves upon society.

  • Painful to know that we will no longer have a champion of liberty in Washington.   Thank God for Ron Paul.  Love and Liberty and common sense.

  • hirsh2

    While I agree with what Dr. Paul says, right now we have the real possibility of copycat shootings.  I think the responsible thing to do immediately is to protect the kids with armed guards or at least a few administrators that are part of a trained rapid response team that, hopefully will never be needed.  What Dr. Paul is suggesting is something that took over 100 years to dissolve.  It cannot and will not happen overnight.

  • Big Brother has arrived and taken over!

  • May god protect you Mr. Paul.
    This is by far the best article and reasoning I have read on the subject of protecting our Liberties.

  • Well said, with 200 million + guns including hundreds of thousands of automatic and easily convertible semi-automatic assault rifles and equally deadly and  preposterusly unsportsman-like .50 cal long range sniper rifles already out there and record sales being recorded, the simple way to slow things down would be to ban ammunition… then we could have a War on Ammunition” led by the intrepid Homeland Security gurus ensuring everybody who wants to can shoottheir opponants defending their rights… whatever they preceive them to be. Eventually America will either run out of bullets or people intent on defending their “rights” to the death.

  • RIGHT ON DR. PAUL!
    Great insertion on abortion.
    W/O LIFE, Liberty and Happiness never happens!

    Ballots NOT Bullets,
    but let’s stock up just in case…

  • kajongwe

    they cannot even protect our embassies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s