Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind Of Violence

Tyler Durden's picture

From Ron Paul

Government Security Is Just Another Kind Of Violence

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
A Lunatic's picture

I have been on both sides of the equation. I have stopped crime from going any further through a display of superior force in the form of a hand gun, and I have also been brutally beaten with no immediate means of defense, and were it not for a concerned citizen I would most likely have been killed. Given a choice I prefer to have the means to defend my (or your) life and liberty in a time of need. I'd guess most informed people feel that way. Merry Christmas...........

nmewn's picture

It has a whole different feel about when it's your ass (or a friend or loved one's ass) on the line doesn't it?

It's not so "nuanced" or academic or the feigned concern for your fellow man. All that takes a back seat to simple survival.

Yes, I've been there too.

Merry Christmas my brother, we've made it this far ;-)

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Lunatic, life experience is a far greater teacher than academics. I've been so fortunate never been victim of a serious crime ( being pickpocketed in Paris was about the extent of it though I was bruised up after beating the hell out the Frenchman!) However, working 6 years in a hospital ER really opened my sheltered eyes. I've seen numerous fatal stabbings and shootings. Those who weren't properly prepared or armed usually died in horrible manners. There were some happy endings such as the late night parking attendant who had been brutally beaten and robbed, returned to his job armed with a shotgun. When the same thugs came a month later for a repeat of a previous easy target he shot one in the chest point blank. The trauma dr called me in to see what was left of him as an " education" 'cause I was the newbie at the time. Or the time a serial carjaker picked a marine and was fatally stabbed in the throat,chest and abdomen. Most victims didn't fair so well. I honestly feel liberal gun grabber academics would lose some of their ideology if they just spend a month on graveyards in an hospital ER. Stay safe and have a Merry Christmas!


UGrev's picture

REF:  See armed guards around every liberal douche bag official. 

Abaco's picture

Perhaps we have the murder and incareration rates of a third-world nation because the governmetn behaves like the government of a third-world nation. One of the biggest causes of violent crime is the insane, third-world do what I say dictator mentality, that wages a phony war on drugs against non-violent people. 

UGrev's picture

read this:

Then feel free to shut the fuck up for a really, really, really long time. 

Citxmech's picture

Best observation ever:

"The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again."

Thanks for posting!

UGrev's picture

You are welcome. However, the thanks you give i must pass to Larry for his insight. What i get out of it is listening to the explosive, deafening, sound of millions of liberal bubbles Bursting at once. It's priceless vindication. 

DaveyJones's picture

interesting stuff and pretty consistent with my observation of violent criminals for 22 years. Most of them deliberately target the far end of the vulnerable spectrum. Make sense

Anusocracy's picture

Sort of what the US does.


rwl160's picture

very good read...two thumps up..

UGrev's picture

I think I'm going to print it out and keep a copy in my inner jacket pocket for those times when a liberal feels like popping a brain vessel about gun control.

UGrev's picture

Curious if the 2 down voters have the balls to ident themselves. 

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

Wish I had more up votes. Thanks for the link Here's my favorite line:

"Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period." Priceless.

bgbarrelridr's picture

Opps, i did one; hit the wrong arrow by mistake.

I just read the whole article and will be printing it out. Good stuff

Translator's picture

Dear Dr Dumbass,



Imagine how high the murder rate would be if Niggers comprised 80% of the country and not 11%.......

WarriorClass's picture

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. 
-MailOnLine (Dailymail dot co dot uk)

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour. 

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show: 
The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

The UK has over 4 times the violent crimes than does the US. Once again proving that disarming the people emboldens criminals and creates more crime.

Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia - YouTube

nmewn's picture

1997...1997...I seem to remember 1997, what happened in "Jolly old England" in 1997?

Ohhh...that's right...they banned handguns.

bob_stl's picture

Yes, it's obvious by your comment that you must be an easy person to reason with.

AGAU's picture

From an outsiders perspective (europe) looking at the US, I think you really need to have guns now. Forget 'random gun violence', that's not much to worry about considering the danger that your government poses, your gov is psycho, I'm actually afraid for you.

Dr Benway's picture

So gun ownership will protect against gov fucking you? How has that really worked out so far? They can keep screwing you insidiously forever, and if one of you take up arms, even ever so righteously, you will be picked off. So how will the guns help you? Are you advocating violent total overthrow of the current gov? No?

A Lunatic's picture

You mistake patience and tolerance for fear and weakness. Self project much?

Dr Benway's picture

Ah so wait grumpily but non-violently for that final sign when it kicks off and the guns will be of use in righteous revolution? Guess what, pussy, that day will never come unless you commit to violent overthrow of the current gov, which is already as corrupt as can be. So what are you waiting for? Someone else to do the work you are too afraid of?

A Lunatic's picture

I do not feed Trolls, get your handouts somewhere else.........

A Nanny Moose's picture

Guns are there, so they don't need to be used....just like nukes.

Why are you compelled to resort violence? Force is what got us here in the first place. Force is what resulted in Napolean.

Merely using the system exactly as it is intended, in order to reclaim your stolen property, would be a more justifieable method of untangling this Gordian Knot. Better yet, just be the change you want to be in the world. That which cannot continue, will not continue.

AnAnonymous's picture

So gun ownership will protect against gov fucking you? How has that really worked out so far?

Stating the right objective to assess success.

'Americans' run an extorting of the weak, farming of the poor business.

The 'american' state has been the most formidable tool in providing success in this endeavour, acting as the most efficient primary enforcer for 'americans'

But it might happen that the State fails, shrinks due to lack of resources.

And in any time, requirements for the extorter and the farmer remain the same: you need a primary enforcer and the appropriated tools.

If indeed guns were to limit the government in its excess, it would be known already.

Guns in 'american' societies are here to serve so that the primary enforcer, the State, fails, allowing any 'american' to step in and become his own primary enforcer of his little extorting of the weak, farming of the poor scheme.

That is what guns are for in 'american' societies.

Keep on the page.

Everybodys All American's picture

Your schtick has grown old with me. I will just say this. I don't care where you are from but without 'americans' you would still be humping camels in the dark.

zerotohero's picture

Actually I think it is well documented that Amerika has never won a war or had an invasion go in their favour - sooooo I think we can live without your help.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

In 'american' farming schemes, AnAnonymous would be plowed under as a weed.

piceridu's picture

So gun ownership will protect against gov fucking you? How has that really worked out so far?


The answer is yes! Can you imagine how fucked we'd be from getting fucked if we didn't having fucking guns?


I love the eff word! It's malleable!

centerline's picture

I don't even read your posts anymore.  No need.  One trick pony.  Take your anger problem elsewhere.

Anusocracy's picture

If you attempt to understand what you wrote you will understand why governments should be disarmed and civilians fully armed.

Government has no compunction about killing any or all. Look at history.

Ookspay's picture

Hey fuckwad, It doesn't matter what you think; God gives me the right to protect myself and the Constitution codifies that right.

formadesika3's picture

I'm curious, Dr Benway, what are you a doctor of?

Raymond Reason's picture

Does it matter?  They all push the same drugs. 

formadesika3's picture

It depends on one's susceptibility or "particular poison" some call it. But it's not the particular drug that piques my interest, it's the method of delivery.

escargot's picture

People really need to come up with a better way of pontificating than simply putting "tard" at the end of certain nouns.  

By the way...what is your agenda?  What's with the "fuck you fuck blah blah fuck off blah blah"?  You drunk or something?

Texas Ginslinger's picture

lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n) n.

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

 2. One who believes in free will.


Within the libertarian set of rules (or non-rules) do indiviual rights & free will mean that there are fewer controls on gun ownership and the mindset of those who can access them..??

If I have a neighbor who seems to be mentally unbalanced, who tells me they received a gun for Christmas, do I take matters into my own hands rather than involving the government..??   

Do I buy a gun and some ammo to protect myself from my crazy neighbor, or do I call a mental health agency and explain the situation..?? 

urwright's picture

TINA! there is no alternative!!!

me? God gave me legs. i'd walk away (or in your case move) 

or plant a bigger seed of fear in his mind and see what he is made of as to build a better understanding of your relationship or a better understanding of your ability to stand up for yourself

AnAnonymous's picture

'American' economics is all about consumption.

So at one end, increase the supply of a product. It helps up consumption.
On the other end, edict a law to control or ban the supplied product, it helps up the consumption.

'American' economics is all about consumption.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

The impossibility to self indict in Chinese citizenism leads to the weirdest result.

The culture of dung pertaining to Chinese citizenism is baffling.

Bear with it, roadside defecation requires resources. Excretion is consumption.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

in 'consumption' China favoringism AnOccupation may occur around 'nail house' dilemma confucionism 'citizenism' yet still reveal anOpportunity as 'preppers' and 'liberal' middleclass 'ameritinisms' behold

Please, get a boat and fall off it.

Not this boat, it's going to the 'other lake'. You get to ride the empty one.

rwl160's picture

you talk to him.. maybe he's not all that imbalanced and just a prepper like you.

Bay of Pigs's picture

LOL, thx for the chuckle MDB.

Merry Christmas Tyler(s).

francis_sawyer's picture

Hey MDB... Do they let MK Monarchs like yourself off for a few days over the holidays?...

resurger's picture

ye forgot about tha MC Tylers and all ZHers!


CPL's picture

terrist!  IN'Murica?  

Unpossible.  Maybe running it you mean.  Haven't seen the large and power Afgani roll up on brighton beach and shell the fuck out of the place yet.


When it happens I'll be watching closely.