Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 1/17/11: Why Gov. Cannot "Make Us Safe"
source: http://dailypaul.com/node/154493
-
-
- TheEmpireGuy
- added this
by Ron Paul
The terrible violence in Arizona last weekend prompted much national discussion on many issues. All Americans are united in their sympathies for the victims and their families. All wonder what could motivate such a horrible act. However, some have attempted to use this tragedy to discredit philosophical adversaries or score political points. This sort of opportunism is simply despicable. We are fortunate to live in a society where violence is universally denounced. Not one public official or commentator has attempted to justify this reprehensible act, yet the newspapers, Internet and airwaves are full of people trying to claim it was somehow motivated by someone else's political rhetoric.
Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials. This was the completely apolitical act of a violent and disturbed man. How sad that the attempted murder of the Congresswoman who had just read the First Amendment on the House Floor would be used in efforts to chill free speech. Perhaps some would feel safer if the Alien and Sedition Acts were reinstated. Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws and for government to do something to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee-jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the Congressional galleries only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens.
Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. Remember, liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty.
We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed they at least have a chance against armed criminals. Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day.
Since police cannot be everywhere all the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves. Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risk or violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.
-
-
Prijedor
-
RP VS Obama 2012... pleaseeeeeeee
- 1 year ago
-
Prijedor
-
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
Prijedor:
That would sure be an interesting match up.
- 1 year ago
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
-
TheAmericanPatriot
-
Prijedor:
Ron Paul would own O in a debate. A real debate.
- 1 year ago
-
TheAmericanPatriot
-
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
TheAmericanPatriot:
I would have to agree.
- 1 year ago
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
It can't make us safe because the right wing prevents it from doing what normal people want it to do, and what is has proven it can do in the past.
- 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
-
-
MizPiz
-
Am I the only person that both likes guns and believes there should be limits on who should own one and where they're permitted?
- 1 year ago
-
MizPiz
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
MizPiz:
No, lol. I'd like to add that 30 round mags for a handgun is excessive, it should be closer to 15 max.
An assault rifle it's fine, people notice when you walk up with one of those.
- 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
-
-
bailey78
-
toyotabedzrock:
I have seen assault rifles that were very VERY compact. an could be hiden quit easy
- 1 year ago
-
bailey78
-
-
ozoneocean
-
bailey78:
Not as easy as a pistol.
- 1 year ago
-
ozoneocean
-
-
jeffreyak
-
MizPiz:
There are limits on who can own a gun... And felons continue to shoot people illegally. Restricting guns only restrict those who abide restrictions .
- 1 year ago
-
jeffreyak
-
-
jeffreyak
-
bailey78:
Knives are very concealable do we outlaw them as well. Oh yeah, screw drivers as well. The list goes on. Laws do not stop criminals.
- 1 year ago
-
jeffreyak
-
-
bailey78
-
ozoneocean:
Whats a Mac ten or a teck nine?
- 1 year ago
-
bailey78
-
-
unimatrix0
-
jeffreyak:
If laws do not stop criminals than I guess we should have no laws at all!
You need to learn to think for yourself - all you are doing is regurgitating bumper sticker slogans from the NRA.
- 1 year ago
-
unimatrix0
-
-
jeffreyak
-
unimatrix0:
Laws distinguish law abiding citizens from non law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves. They don't need to rob, lie, cheat, and steal to protect themselves. Criminals already break those laws as well. If a law restricts a law abiding citizen from saftey then no we do not need that law. Get a grip. I'm no sheep.
- 1 year ago
-
jeffreyak
-
-
jeffreyak
-
unimatrix0:
By the way dont tell me I need to think for myself and your name is a fucking Star Trek episode. Douchebag.
- 1 year ago
-
jeffreyak
-
-
Paratus
-
bailey78:
A MAC 10 is a 9mm or .45ACP subgun. I have fired a MAC 11, the .380 version and slightly smaller and faster than the 10. Didn't really like the gun. Never fired a 10. You can't buy these things at a gun show or private person. They are subject to the National Firearms Act. Takes a couple of months and a BATFE check + a letter from the chief law enforcement person in your area to get one.
A TEC9 is a semi-automatic 9mm which was originally designed in Sweden. It is not highly regarded among people who actually know how to use firearms. I wouldn't have one. - 1 year ago
-
Paratus
-
-
Paratus
-
jeffreyak:
You are correct, laws do not stop criminals. Anyone thinking that a hold up man, rapist etc. is worried about gun laws and said laws will keep them from their deeds are wrong.
- 1 year ago
-
Paratus
-
-
Paratus
-
jeffreyak:
Bravo
- 1 year ago
-
Paratus
-
-
bailey78
-
Paratus:
The Guns in that class all serve the same purpuse to kill man They are not for hunting at all.
- 1 year ago
-
bailey78
-
-
Paratus
-
bailey78:
I'm not sure what your point is unless it is to allege that the only valid reason to own a gun is to hunt. A gun is a tool and, as such, can be put to any use that its owner wishes. I kinda like being safe and the state won't be able to accomplish that. I'm not really much of a hunter.
- 1 year ago
-
Paratus
-
-
bailey78
-
Paratus:
sure go by a gun or ten guns if that what it take for you to feel safe.
- 1 year ago
-
bailey78
-
-
Sparky2U
-
Someone had to say something..
- 1 year ago
-
Sparky2U
-
-
ThatCrazyLibertarian [removed]
- This comment was removed by its owner.
-
ThatCrazyLibertarian [removed]
-
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
ThatCrazyLibertarian:
If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean?
- 1 year ago
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
-
ThatCrazyLibertarian [removed]
-
TheEmpireGuy: This comment was removed by its owner.
-
ThatCrazyLibertarian [removed]
-
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
ThatCrazyLibertarian:
Ah. I understand what you're getting at. I don't think he was trying to grandstand, as others have. I don't think he was trying to use this as a political springboard, in fact, he denounced such things in this statement.
I think he was simply making a statement, something he obviously believed was needed or else I don't think he would have done it. He certainly wasn't the first one to say anything. He didn't jump right out immediately and make a quick punch like others did. He waited and that leads me to believe he thought this out.
Us Libertarians might already know what he is saying here, but others don't. I think that is why he made the statement in the first place.
- 1 year ago
-
TheEmpireGuy
-
-
jeffreyak
-
TheEmpireGuy:
I think it is required for him to respond to the use of this shooting by others for calls to create more government restriction and desolation of our constitution.
- 1 year ago
-
jeffreyak