This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

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.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:03 | Link to Comment Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

I struggle with this; your view has merit in the current environment.  There were some local issues that got me into the booth.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:08 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

correctamundo

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 18:52 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

I agree.  The further you get from the top, the more influence we have.  Politics on a local level is where we can make the biggest difference.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:49 | Link to Comment UGrev
UGrev's picture

You can either view it as compiance, or you can view it as a warning. I chose the latter. 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:19 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

How do we prevent the coming Idiocracy from becoming a total reality? How do you prevent stupid people from procreating? That is what I want to know.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:33 | Link to Comment Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

This is a real problem. I can't think of anything that wouldn't smack of Eugenics. The problem at the other end of the scale is the efficiency the psychopaths at the top have shown at getting their DNA into the gene pool.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:58 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

How do you prevent stupid people from procreating?

 

Just stop subsidizing it. That would be a good start.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:07 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

good point.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:21 | Link to Comment Sockeye
Sockeye's picture

End the Fed. It enables people to become stupid and irresponsible. Take away the government cheese (in all it's forms) and you'll see people wise up real quick.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 18:06 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Well, it's a tough issue, since we have to make sure they can't get abortions or learn about birth-control in schools or even GET birth control if they're poor.

Otherwise, though, where would we get all the stupid people to continue to campaign for big-gummit oversight of those sorts of things?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:28 | Link to Comment stinkhammer
stinkhammer's picture

FREEDOM!  bring it motherfuckers

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:29 | Link to Comment r101958
r101958's picture

Spot on Ron - as usual. A voice of clarity and reason from the fog of MSM and government obfuscation.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:34 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

RON PAUL!

BiTcHeZ!

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:36 | Link to Comment gckings19
gckings19's picture

ron paul for president.  its funny, the guy that the media prtrayed as a right wing nut, is actually a man of reasoned thought.  what a joke the media is....and the political establishment.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:14 | Link to Comment sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

the lame stream media is comprised of groupthink monkeys

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:59 | Link to Comment Creepy Lurker
Creepy Lurker's picture

This is a powerful essay. If he continues to write like this, (and can get the essays disbributed widely) this could end up being more effective than running for POTUS in rigged elections.

Modern Tom Paine, bitchez?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:37 | Link to Comment Poetic injustice
Poetic injustice's picture

Safety for selected, slavery for rest.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:38 | Link to Comment not fat not stupid
not fat not stupid's picture

<to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions>

 

easy to say but WHOSE family, WHOSE religion WHOSE social institutions? fuck family values, fuck religion and fuck institutions that want to send us back to 1950.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:01 | Link to Comment Turin Turambar
Turin Turambar's picture

In a free society, people voluntarily choose for themselves ABSENT government coercion.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:02 | Link to Comment StandardDeviant
StandardDeviant's picture

Exactly.  What a shame that he dragged religion into this.  (Oh, and abortion: WTF?!)

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:38 | Link to Comment andyupnorth
andyupnorth's picture

I agree with all the arguments, but I still have a feeling that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax; a false flag...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNODtxeuaug

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:06 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Didn't watch the video but Sandy Hook as a false flag goes both too far and not far enough. The "conspiracy" is much broader than that. It includes a variety of efforts to dumb down individuals and make them dependent through politics, media and pharmaceuticals. No one had to select Adam Lanza as a patsy. The system is designed to destroy the individual's humanity and create a a nation of helpless people, some of whom lash out violently while the majority refuse to take any independent steps in protecting or even educating themselves.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:53 | Link to Comment andyupnorth
andyupnorth's picture

Watch the videos Crockett.  It's not undeniable proof, but it's certainly suspiscious.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:07 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I watched half of it and I'd like to have those seven minutes back. Is it any surprise that when media rushes to judgement that there are errors not only in their conclusions but in the individual reported "facts" as well? Please don't fall for the idea that every bad thing you can imagine is true.

The problem here is the "Gun Free Zones" law and the fact that crazy killers look for just that kind of soft target. Making the story into something else only helps the gun grabbers.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 16:16 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Part Hanlon's Razor, part government educated parrots, regurgitating The State's narrative.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:48 | Link to Comment andyupnorth
andyupnorth's picture

Then there's the man who claims to have sheltered students from Ms. Soto's class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ZQ9aA9AY8

http://foxnewsinsider.com/tag/man-shelters-sandy-hook-students/

How were  the  kids able to leave a school that's in lockdown?  And it's also a little suspiscious how they were lined up in front of his driveway... as if they were planted there...

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:50 | Link to Comment andyupnorth
andyupnorth's picture

And wasn't there a sophisticated video surveillance system in the school?  Where's the footage?  Or was it confiscated like the Pentagon footage on 9/11?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:52 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

I agree with all the arguments, but I still have a feeling that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax; a false flag...

 

 

Sure, just like the rest.

They will not allow the simple answers to the easily solved MASS murders to be implemented.

Allow armed guards/CCP well trained teachers, and CCP holders access to any VENUE they want,then this shit would come to a 98% screeching halt.

BUT, the NRA's suggestions, are falling of deaf ears, their agenda to rob us of more liberties, could not be accomplished if WE did sensible/logical things.

If the POTUS and state/local gvts actually gave a rats ass about the Innoncents, make the perps PAY.

After all,"Never let a good crisis go to waste".

Nothing makes me more ill, than seeing 50-75 SWAT/LE/PD/Sherriff Depts AFTER the frigging facts, doing NOTHING except body counts.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 18:15 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

There were armed guards at the Columbine shooting, they failed to save the day.  I think it seems like a fine idea, myself, but someone has to pay for it, and there's always a second risk that comes into play when you have folks with guns around other people's kids.

If an excitable trained expert ends up shooting someone "innocent" because he mistook a toy for a gun or something, it wouldn't go over very well.  Perhaps we can shift the statistics a bit--rather than 10 kids per year on average being shot by crazed gunmen, we could turn it into 10 kids per year shot accidentally by overzealous "defenders of liberty."

Best just to suck it in and cope, either way.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 19:19 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Armed citizens did prevent additional killings in Pearl, Mississippi, Edinboro, PA and Happy Valley, Oregon. No innocent bystanders were hurt by those who interceded. In Oregon the citizen with a concealed weapons permit did not fire because a bystander was in the way. The crazed shooter then went into a store and killed himself. As far as costs go, the NRA has presented a plan that will cost schools little to nothing to implement.

 

Every school and community is different, but this model security plan
will allow every school to choose among its various components to
develop a school safety strategy that fits their own unique situation,
whether it's a large urban school, a small rural school or anything
in between.

Armed, trained, qualified school security personnel will be one element
of that plan, but by no means the only element. If a school decides for
whatever reason that it doesn't want or need armed security
personnel, that of course is a decision to be made by parents at the
local level.

The second point I want to make is that this will be a program that
doesn't depend on massive funding from local authorities or the
federal government. Instead, it'll make use of local volunteers serving
in their own communities.

In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local
group called "Watchdog Dads," who volunteer their time at schools to
patrol playgrounds and provide a measure of added security.

 

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

 

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 19:30 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I can inform you that there are armed teachers in our school here and it costs no one anything extra. Its their safety as well, they take it seriously and they don't leave their rights at the school door (or five hundred feet away).

When laws are deemed stupid by the population they are routinely ignored...no ones been shot, including a disruptive (at times) squire nmewn.

He gets that from his mother ;-)

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:17 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The LIBOR connection originated with "Fabian4Liberty" who provides no evidence whatsoever. It's bullshit.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gui-VRT_YZo

 

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:41 | Link to Comment Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

These words from RP, uttered in the face of the worst media onslaught in recent memory, were sorely needed. I feel a bit better now.

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. - Voltaire

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:40 | Link to Comment Reformed Sheep
Reformed Sheep's picture

Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America...

And therein lies the problem - at this point, just how do you return America to a civil society?

Those in power (and their media lackeys) won't let it happen - not enough profit in a purely 'civil' society...


Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:45 | Link to Comment Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

Hang in there for a while longer. This isn't over yet.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:58 | Link to Comment UNCOMPROMISED
UNCOMPROMISED's picture

Once you go welfare you can never go back Ralpie. As a whole, the NA populous will never return to it's previous virtuous cycle. It cannot.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:48 | Link to Comment sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

You have it right. If I have the time, I would elaborate further. Very few think critically and see this. Up arrow for you.

I have to say it verbally because for some reason, I clicking the green arrow isn't working.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:50 | Link to Comment Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

If you start a post with Italics, the arrows don't work.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 18:55 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Good catch!  I was wondering about that. . .

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:02 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Revolution, and return the Republic back to her rightful owners, the American people. What don't they get about by the people for the people?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:31 | Link to Comment Sockeye
Sockeye's picture

How do we rebuild a civil society? We can start by recognizing the tyranny of an unjust government.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:43 | Link to Comment mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

I voted for Ron Paul. It was easy. I simply used an indelible marker to write "Ron Paul" in big black letters on the screen of the electronic automatic vote-generation machine.

Then, aftfer a moment's reflection, I wrote beneath that, "If you vote for anyone else, you deserve the police state you are going to get, you stupid brainwashed motherf**kers."

It was the best voting experience of my life.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:43 | Link to Comment TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

Here Here! Such common sense logic from a person who lived and worked many years in Washington DC on this Christmas Eve day is just refreshing.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:50 | Link to Comment TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

Patrick Henry of Virginia stated so well......."Give Me LIBERTY or Give Me DEATH"

Is life so damn precious that being a slave is ok? Where is the spirit that sent men west where many men, women and children died on the trails so they could have a moment of sweat, blood and toil as a FREE Man!

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:12 | Link to Comment UNCOMPROMISED
UNCOMPROMISED's picture

.gov is making everybody safe, no?

 

SWAT Cops To Ask For IDs From Everyone In This Town

“This fear is what’s given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they’re scared, we can do this,”Stovall said, according to the Paragould Daily Press. “It allows us to do what we’re fixing to do.”

“If you’re out walking, we’re going to stop you, ask why you’re out walking, check for your ID,”

“To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason,” he said. “Well, I’ve got statistical reasons that say I’ve got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you’re doing out. Then when I add that people are scared…then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area.”

“They may not be doing anything but walking their dog,” added Mayor Gaskill, “but they’re going to have to prove it.”

Show me your papers Bitchez!

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:24 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The people in that town should all go out for a stroll and not only provide ID but have a long, pleasant chat with every officer encountered. Bog down the system. This is what Jesus meant when he said "go the extra mile." The Romans made peasants carry packs for the legions but they could only be forced to go one mile. Jesus said go the extra mile so as to confuse the Romans and liberate the people by breaking the law through over compliance. It's a stroke of genius.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:46 | Link to Comment UNCOMPROMISED
UNCOMPROMISED's picture

But we have a constitution my friend that defines these critical boundries. Why do so many have no regard for the very basis of their everyday lives?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges ... of citizens ... nor ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny ... the equal protection of the laws.

Learn it, live it. Your god has nothing to do with it. Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

 

The Fourth Amendment guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been found in this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:50 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The courts aren't going to protect us. Bogging down the system provides every individual with a way to compromise the false authority of an overzealous government.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 16:20 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

^^ This ^^

Tue, 12/25/2012 - 09:09 | Link to Comment tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 18:23 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Although I personally agree it's completely illegitimate for the police to stop and ask an individual for ANYTHING without cause, I don't see how this qualifies as a "Constitutional" issue.

Does asking for ID abridge your privileges or deprive you of life, liberty, or property?  If so, how?

       No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges ... of citizens ... nor ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny ... the equal protection of the laws.

When similar measures were passed in AZ to justify searches of Latino folks, it went over pretty well.  Those damn crazy conservatives with their big-gummit intrusion!  Heh.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 18:59 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

See Miranda v. Arizona, e.g.:  "You have the right to remain silent. . . "

Tue, 12/25/2012 - 10:29 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

That doesn't have anything to do with it, no.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 19:17 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Does asking for ID abridge your privileges or deprive you of life, liberty, or property?"

Yes, it does.

"If so, how?"

Liberty is also time & motion...not just desiring to purchase a now banned 32oz soda in NYC or popcorn with REAL butter.

"When similar measures were passed in AZ to justify searches of Latino folks, it went over pretty well."

You knew that was bullshit when you wrote it...the AZ law basically copied the federal law...because, you know...the "progressive" feds were ignoring the federal law regarding illegals, who were depriving American citizens of their...life, liberty and property.

Whether the deprived citizen was aisian, latino, black, white, tatooed or Goth.

Heh.

Tue, 12/25/2012 - 10:37 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

This doesn't even make sense.  You're arguing both sides, just trying to be "anti-progressive," whatever that means.

You say "liberty is time and motion" but that when AZ cops were greenlighted to ask for ID from Latinos, it was a copy of "the Federal law." 

It sounds like you just made all that up.

    ----------

"The Constitution" doesn't *itself* cover cops asking for IDs. 

There's plenty of precedent and "legislation from the bench" that may address this issue, but for sure the Founders didn't write a word about it.  And why would they?  Who carried ID in the 1780s?  Aside from various government offices and various business responsibilities that would require a letter or seal or something to denote someone as a valid representative for some legal purpose, you were identified based on what you SAID.

In any case, the obvious solution is to stop carrying ID.  You can't provide what you don't have on you, and really, if it's such a major Constitutional issue, it goes way beyond "production on demand"--the State has no right to require you even POSSESS ID.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:47 | Link to Comment yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

So many fallicies woven together into a tempting, but ultimately self-serving, diatribe.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:50 | Link to Comment Pareto
Pareto's picture

oh fuck.  please save me yrbmegr!!  please save me, your our saviour, because you know everything that is good and efficient and propper and moral.  Fucking idiot.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:53 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

yrbmegr won't be happy until his worldview is your worldview. In his mind, he is certain his way is the right way.

The crux of the problem is whether or not ybmegr is willing to use force to get his way.

In other words, is ybmegr human or not?

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:53 | Link to Comment Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

How is it self-serving? Ron Paul isn't running for political office anymore.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:36 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

but ultimately self-serving, diatribe.

 

Whereas you endeavor to injure yourself in your daily actions. That was also a favorite passtime of Adam Lanza.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:48 | Link to Comment Pareto
Pareto's picture

As per usual, RP is correct again, I like the line that "We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws."  Thats it, in a nutshell isn't it?.  We think we can fix shit by creating new laws, or redistributing wealth, or, price fixing interest rates, in hopes that problems will just go away.  We hunt for the easy fix, so we don't have to feel the pain.  And it NEVER works.  EVER.  We just become more resentful of the continued capricious redistribution, theft, cheating, and the confiscation of liberty, the permanent intrusion of government into EVERY fucking facet of our lives.  Donations, volunteerism, looking after neighbors, friends, and family become less and less, as the government endeavors to take more and more.  Its no wonder society has become impatient, intolerant, and alienated.  The state has destroyed the ability for people to feel and be otherwise.  That this man isn't President speaks volumes to just how far down the path of decay and moral bankruptcy the country has gone, IMO.  

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:52 | Link to Comment Dubious Maximus
Dubious Maximus's picture

Ron is basically saying what the founding fathers meant for this country to be and become.  The U.S. is going in a totally opposite direction.  It didn't start with the current administration...

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:55 | Link to Comment Nota bene
Nota bene's picture

Sorry, but your right to own semi-automatic weapons doesn't trump my right to live.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:59 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Kindly try not to step in front of it then.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:44 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

- Dick Cheney

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:56 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

- or any really tall buildings

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 19:02 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Funny, my semi-automatic weapons are a big part of my long-term survival strategy. . .

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:11 | Link to Comment Turin Turambar
Turin Turambar's picture

Wanna bet?  Just try and impose your views on me personally with lethal aggression.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:13 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

You wasted your only ever post on a false equivalent?

You deserve to be Beaten On.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:43 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Way to "exclude the middle" of me not shooting you (though I can't say you're wrong, after that post).

You do know that taking away his semi-auto doesn't prevent a less law-abiding person from "trumping your right to live" anyway?

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:17 | Link to Comment Abaco
Abaco's picture

or beating his dumb ass with a bat.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 20:23 | Link to Comment delacroix
delacroix's picture

a bolt action will kill you just as quick as a semi-auto

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:54 | Link to Comment a growing concern
a growing concern's picture

Your right to eat whatever you want and become a fatass and have a heart attack doesn't trump my right not to have to pay for your hospital bill. What? I do have to pay for your hospital bill through my own elevated healthcare costs? Well then you can eat a dick.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 17:31 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

By extension, there are two avenues then:  Governmental control of everybody's business; or get the camel's nose out of our tents.  If taxation is the means by which the govt. encourages you to support totalitarianism - then the tax system/governmentally imposed social safety net might be a big part of the problem eh?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:03 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Sorry, but your right to own semi-automatic weapons doesn't trump my right to live.

 

The principal at Sandy Hook had no legal ability to possess a weapon on school grounds. That lack of rights trumped her life and the lives of her students. This principal broke the "Gun Free Zone" law and saved some kids:

 

Pearl High School shooting

 

The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and a trenchcoat,[1] he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car. Then Myrick demanded "Why did you shoot my kids?" to which Woodham replied, "Life has wronged me, sir."[2]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:00 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

If that's the case, then you (and everyone else) can't do ANYTHING that might possibly cause me harm.

Good luck with that.

BTW, that's the government's position towards the people.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:38 | Link to Comment Sturm und Drang
Sturm und Drang's picture

"Sorry, but your right to own semi-automatic weapons doesn't trump my right to live."

I call.  I've got two hands and a nasty dispostion - what you got?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 16:15 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Sorry, but your right to own semi-automatic weapons doesn't trump my right to live.

 

Yes it does....................

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 16:35 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

If I don't have a right to own semi-automatic weapons, then

you do not have a right to life,

or even the right to voice a complaint about your utter lack of a right to life.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:57 | Link to Comment tooriskytoinvest
tooriskytoinvest's picture

Agenda 21 Is Being Rammed Down The Throats Of Local Communities All Over America

http://investmentwatchblog.com/agenda-21-is-being-rammed-down-the-throats-of-local-communities-all-over-america/

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:55 | Link to Comment G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

Your absolutely right tooriskytoinvest.

Check out Rosa Kories work. Though she's a democrat she has pulled the covers off UN Agenda 21 like no other.

Most have't any idea what is going on in their own towns.

Very good interview below for those whom care to get educated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gHJ1PLwRX4

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:57 | Link to Comment shutupnsing
shutupnsing's picture

We've finally pierced INSANITY'S Veil boys! http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:39 | Link to Comment UNCOMPROMISED
UNCOMPROMISED's picture

I wonder if they have a nice map that shows how many nice sheep that have been hypnotized by The Gannett Veil....

 

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.  (h/t a zh poster from last week)

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:45 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

h/t Ben Franklin

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:14 | Link to Comment UNCOMPROMISED
UNCOMPROMISED's picture

Well of course. The zh'er did h/t BF last week so the reference cascades along the chain of h/t's.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:58 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Good, I hope RP lambasted that shill from the NRA on armed guards....

Somehow, I doubt it...

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:06 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Anti-gun religion=bad, Gun-worship religion=good.

I'm an obsolete man.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:46 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Merry Christmas....

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:00 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

"Hand over the bag, Santa, and nobody needs to get hurt."

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:50 | Link to Comment Sturm und Drang
Sturm und Drang's picture

I'm here, ready or not.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:08 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

You have a complete misunderstanding.

Guns are a means of protecting oneself from the psychopaths in and out of government.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:44 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

If you step away from LaPierre's general statements and media distortions of them you will see that the actual NRA plan is something which Ron Paul would likely approve.

 

Every school and community is different, but this model security plan
will allow every school to choose among its various components to
develop a school safety strategy that fits their own unique situation,
whether it's a large urban school, a small rural school or anything
in between.

Armed, trained, qualified school security personnel will be one element
of that plan, but by no means the only element. If a school decides for
whatever reason that it doesn't want or need armed security
personnel, that of course is a decision to be made by parents at the
local level.

The second point I want to make is that this will be a program that
doesn't depend on massive funding from local authorities or the
federal government. Instead, it'll make use of local volunteers serving
in their own communities.

In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local
group called "Watchdog Dads," who volunteer their time at schools to
patrol playgrounds and provide a measure of added security.

 

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

 

Forget about profiling crazy people and government cops. There are responsible individuals standing by in every part of this country who are willing to protect the innocent free of charge.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:04 | Link to Comment Rustysilver
Rustysilver's picture

WaterfallSparkles,

You just described my town in CT. About 50 miles from Newton. You are not alone.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:06 | Link to Comment Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Thanks Rusty. In Maryland they have gotten way out of hand.

The Speed and Red Light Cameras everywhere.  You can even get a speeding ticket for standing still.  The Red Light Cameras, the timing is too short to let you get out of the intersection.  They time them for 3 seconds to cross a 6 lane highway. Now everyone slams on their breaks and cause rear end accidents. They say it is for safety but everyone knows it is for revenue.

Surveillance everywhere.  Go downtown and they have the Camera Eyes everywhere. Yet they cannot stop the Crime, the shootings, the stabbings, the beatings.  The roving Gangs that attack people or rob convience stores.  They also cannot stop the gangland time of Murders.

I will tell you one thing if you work at McDonalds do not make the mistake of giving someone cheese on their Burger if they did not want it.  It could cost you your life.  The poor man that they stripped naked and took his wallet, phone, watch, etc.

Want to live in an Orwellian State it is Maryland. Yet, it has done nothing to stop violent crime from happeining.

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 17:08 | Link to Comment dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

There used to be a website from the UK that had a collection of pictures of vandalized photo radar cameras.  Quite humorousreally.  I tried to find it to link here but Gloogle seems to have it blocked.  Maybe somebody  else will have luck finding it.

 

The cameras are gatto and truvelo

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 23:31 | Link to Comment dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

Found it.  enjoy

 

http://www.redditmirror.cc/cache/websites/www.speedcam.co.uk_adyvb/www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

edit:  there used to be 4 pages or more of images on the site above. all but the first  page is gone.  searching this there were so many blocked sites.  the photo's had artistic value, what a loss.

http://english.controleradar.org/destroyed-speed-camera.php

 

http://english.controleradar.org/funny-speed-camera.php

 http://www.birties.co.uk/gatso/gatso.htm

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:06 | Link to Comment mewenz
mewenz's picture

RP has a lot of good ideas but am I the only one out there who thinks the ideology goes a bit too far at times to the point of sidelining his many good thoughts?

"Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety"

So are we all responsible for our own safety?  A wild west with every man and woman for themselves?  Even they needed a sheriff.  We as a society shouldn't attempt to better protect our children if it "interferes" in any way?  Just what doesn't "interfere" then?  Do the "rights" of the potentially dangerous not to be "interfered with" override the safety of our children?  Just what qualifies as "government interference" and what doesn't?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:14 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

You conflate safety with convenience.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:26 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

The law of the jungle is the only law we need.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:38 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

No, it isn't. A nation of laws is not the same as a nanny state. Personal responsibility includes personal safety and that of your children. Lack of critical thinking and flawed biased assumptions will almost always fail to penetrate government-funded perceptions.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:45 | Link to Comment The Joker
The Joker's picture

Problem is, the government and CBs are above the law.  The law only applies to us.  That is the corruption.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:57 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

No, We The People forget all power flows from us.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:24 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The mob creates this clusterfuck called government and they are pretty much incapable of changing.

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 17:15 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Democracy. You're talking about Democracy.

Not a Constitutional Republic.

Tue, 12/25/2012 - 00:38 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

In case you hadn't noticed, a constitutional republic is what gave us this mess.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me a hundred times, I'm an American voter.

Tue, 12/25/2012 - 16:56 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Turning the US into a democracy, that is, majority (aka mob/lowest common denominator) rule, is what is doing it. Ignoring the Constitution, diluting it with activist courts, corrupt politicians,  selective abject failure to enforce the law and last, but not least, corporations masquerading as people. All of it financed by FIAT.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:38 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Believing any laws beyond those of the jungle will save you is naive.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:04 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

The law of the jungle is the only law we need.

 

Government is the law of the jungle -- might makes right. In a free society one can only advance by providing service to others on a voluntary basis. Is it any wonder that a governmental system based on the efficacy of violent coercion leads to violence?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:43 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

If sociopathy is a successful method of survival, you will breed more sociopaths.

If savagery is a successful method of survival, you will breed more savages.

If thievery is a successful method of survival, you will breed more thieves.

If parasitism is a successful method of survival, you will breed more parasites.

Is there any wonder why government fails?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:39 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

"So are we all responsible for our own safety? "

If not you, then who? And are you sure they can do a better job than you, by your definition?

"Even they needed a sheriff."

Look up Posse Comatatus on Wikipedia and learn something.

"We as a society shouldn't attempt to better protect our children if it "interferes" in any way?"

Re-read the article; you shouldn't FAIL to better protect your children while interfering.

"Do the "rights" of the potentially dangerous not to be "interfered with" override the safety of our children?"

You are aware that millions of people own and enjoy guns without being potentially dangerous to anyone? And that these people too, have rights? 

"Just what qualifies as "government interference" and what doesn't?"

It's ALL government interference; the question is how much is justified...law is always about balancing opposed rights from several parties.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:21 | Link to Comment TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

...Billy the Kid killed for revenge because of the criminal injustice system.

Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Absolutely!

Power corrupts all and good moral men must fight evil. Power corrupts the good men too, so the system must continue to be refreshed with good men fighting the powerful. When good men shrink from their duty. you create a mafia-based society. For example, many lawyers know peers who violate the Bar's ethics, but most choose to ignore this unethical behavior. Soon, a system, that was just and fair, lowers its standards until the system's only objective is to make money...or the American Injustice System. 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:42 | Link to Comment The Joker
The Joker's picture

Unfortunately good moral men never stoop to becoming politicians.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:57 | Link to Comment Creepy Lurker
Creepy Lurker's picture

Bingo! That's the crux of the problem. Only sociopaths are attracted to the job. It is the very nature of the system that's broken. The only solution I can see other than individualist anarchy (that would be spastica's law of the jungle) is the Heinlein solution.

Heinlein suggested all government servants be drawn at random from the populace and forced to serve a single term, never to be called on again. They get no special compensation other than the median income for the length of the term. It should go without saying that no lobbying (i.e. bribery) is permitted.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 17:05 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Works great for the peer jury system.

LOL

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 21:57 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Law of the jungle, natural law, Ayn's Law... I was just trolling.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 16:29 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Since government is the initiation of force, advocating for any government whatsoever is not morally consistent. What is wrong with allowing individuals to decide for themselves, how to best protect themselves?

Do the "rights" of the potentially dangerous not to be "interfered with" override the safety of our children?

Who decides, which persons are potentially dangerous? What crime have the potentially dangerous committed, and what should be their punishment? You understand that this is a slippery slope, right?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 22:39 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

In the original concept of rights, yes, "potentially dangerous" people have just as many rights as others.

"potentially dangerous" isn't in the original concept of rights.  There was no such concept.  Nobody was under suspicion of anything if they hadn't committed a crime.  

If they did commit a crime they were prosecuted according to the law, paid the penalty for that crime, then their full rights were restored, no permanent loss of rights like we have today.

If their crime was serious enough they were executed.  No more worrying about any rights, no more worrying about being a danger to society.

This "potentially dangerous" concept was created as a way to strip rights away from people, just like all sorts of other schemes to strip rights away from people.

This government would love to strip away all rights from people, and they're doing pretty well at it.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:07 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Throw away all the pencils because our second graders are misspelling words with them.. Ban them!

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:52 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Then y a can have my pensil when they pry it  fiorm my cols  dead ha nds.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:13 | Link to Comment northerngirl
northerngirl's picture

This is the problem with America... American's. 

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:14 | Link to Comment El_Puerco
El_Puerco's picture

RON PAUL!...Hey!...Where are you?!...

 

:P

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:14 | Link to Comment Zap Powerz
Zap Powerz's picture

I like Ron Paul's message and his point of view.  I suspect many of us here do.

Unfortunately, we are a tiny minority in a country full of statist parasites that want safety and risk elimination above all else.  They dont want their feelings  hurt.  They dont want anything bad to ever happen.  They dont want to be held accountable for their actions.  They are infants crying for parental protection.

And they vote.

There is no way to fix how broken this country is.  Let it collapse, let the weak die.  Shed the dead weight and then start over using the principles of Liberty.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 23:04 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

then start over using the principles of Liberty.

Never gonna happen.

There's no historical record of a nation starting over with more liberty. 

It gets worse and worse till the nation collapses, then it's invaded and conquered, coming under control of some other tyrannical govt.

The French Revolution might be one case where people gained more liberty for a while.  They got rid of the monarchy but ended up with a socialist govt almost as bad.

America was unique in 1776, colonies throwing off the british monarchy becoming a nation, establishing a constitutional replublic where law was king, not the whims of rulers.

But look where we are now, communism, socialism, fascism, constitution abandoned long ago, Bill of Rights abandoned long ago.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:15 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

Government can't do anything except fuck things up--period. The bigger the government the more dangerous and self destructive it becomes.

Those are facts that have been proven many times over thousands of years.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 15:59 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Progress depends on the vitality of the productive sector

Government destroys that vitality, and the bigger the government, the more thorough the destruction.

The USSR, from beginning to end, had virtually no progress.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:17 | Link to Comment G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

When you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government.

Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:59 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

At least that's their argument...see US v Lopez for details.

It could be argued that excessively lax gun policy in state A leads to increased cost in state B for policing, economic hardships from increased violence, loss of tourism, and generally poor feng shui, if they wanted to frame it as a commerce clause issue "among the several States".

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:18 | Link to Comment G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

JUSTICE BREYER rejects our reading of precedent and argues that "Congress . . . could rationally conclude that schools fall on the commercial side of the line." Post, at 16. Again, JUSTICE BREYER'S rationale lacks any real limits because, depending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commercial. Under the dissent's rationale, Congress could just as easily look at child rearing as "fall[ing] on the commercial side of the line" because it provides a "valuable service - namely, to equip [children] with the skills they need to survive in life and, more specifically, in the workplace." Ibid. We do not doubt that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate numerous commercial activities that substantially affect interstate commerce and also affect the educational process. That authority, though broad, does not include the authority to regulate each and every aspect of local schools.

Admittedly, a determination whether an intrastate activity is commercial or noncommercial may in some cases result in legal uncertainty. But, so long as Congress' authority is limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and so long as those enumerated powers are interpreted as having judicially enforceable outer limits, congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause always will engender "legal uncertainty." Post, at 17. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=...

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:25 | Link to Comment Abaco
Abaco's picture

The second amendment, being passed after the original ratification of the constitution which has the commerce clause,  is rightfully read as a restriction of the power to regulate commerce and any other power previously granted to the federal government. Moreover, the commerce clause grants the power to regulate interstate commerce (essentiall wholsesale exchange of goods), which at the time of ratification, was distinguished from agriculture, manufacturing, and trade. It does not give the power to regulate any activity which, in the aggregate, has an economic effect. The government's argument is sh*t.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 19:31 | Link to Comment G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

Indeed, Mr. Abaco, indeed!

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 23:23 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

BETWEEN states, NOT WITHIN STATES.

Commerce clause applied ONLY to commerce between states and ONLY when there was a dispute, federal govt acting as an arbitrator. 

It didn't confer ANY federal authority within a state.  10th amendment clearly says that.

But the civil war changed everything.  States were conquered in the civil war, no longer independent states with their own governments, federal constitution no longer applies because states creating the federal govt were conquered by the federal govt.

Yes, even back in 1860 the federal govt had gotten too big, too powerful.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:31 | Link to Comment TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

You should go read the intense discuss the founder had about penning the first 10 amendments. They all wanted to be clear and explicit about these rights, but many felt the constitution clearly defined the only rights the federal government had and were concerned that if they explicitly defined rights to the people that they were implying any other rights could be claimed by the federal government.

Of course, they would never had imagined a supreme court justice like Ginsburg. 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 16:34 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?

Years of abuse of the Interstate Commerce clause...............and now they have destroyed the 5th Amendment, so you have NO rights of any kind at all, IF your willing to GO WITH.

They only have the power we ALLOW them to have.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:28 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

Secede from the US.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:33 | Link to Comment Laddie
Laddie's picture

In March 2001 a tremendously gifted libertarian woman, Carol Ward, wrote the following, which is an excerpt from a longer piece, she pissed off the Jewish groups and they hounded her into obscurity, nevertheless she was REAL good.

 

This grumpy libertarian offers that we need MORE socialism and MORE utopian blather, not less, if we're going to have the knock-down-drag-out necessary to regain the soul of our Jeffersonian Republic. It's the drip drip drip of Utopianism in the first half of this century that left us in this hazy-semi-conscious-lock-step, each time gubmint says "pay up" or else.

Why not say --Bring it all on - all of it. Utopians in all three branches of government. Confiscate the guns. Photo cop in every intersection. Breathalyzer and retina scans at freeway ramps. 70% death tax [just to churn the economy for the benefit of the "needy".] Cradle to grave healthcare will endure only until somebody discovers that certain "behaviors" mean higher "costs". Utopians may be surprisingly niggardly with public dollars when exponential demand by the "unfit", "imperfect", and "unhealthy", drain the treasury of discretionary dollars, which could be used to rescue aging rock climbers and provide necessary paths for bicycle riding city dwellers.

We will make them hate each other as much as they hate us.

But wait, you say, we can't do this. It means the end of life, as we know it. Utopia requires a police state. And a police state ends constitutional government. Constitutional government has already been reduced to what the meaning of is - is. It's whatever they say it is so long as they deliver the goods.

Elections today can only be described as 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

So whaddya think is cookin?

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:46 | Link to Comment Gamma735
Gamma735's picture

The government can't protect you, they can only clean up the mess.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 16:04 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

They don't clean up the mess.

The taxpayer does.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:48 | Link to Comment cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

"Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?"

 

No damn way.  I'm not going to pay for it either.  That is like paying to have someone take away my liberty while another thing I don't want to pay for is Gitmo, drones and murder.

 

Fed, you are on your own.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:54 | Link to Comment overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

Thank you Ron Paul. your voice is heard , the people who can understand agree. separation is the only answer as the basic understanding of the role of government is discussed we see those who demand slavery. let them go..freemen are the only ones worth living with. now we must find a way to seperate with as little violence as .gov will allow.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:52 | Link to Comment Laddie
Laddie's picture

We should have listened to the Founding Fathers, the Naturalization Act of 1790 says the country is open to “free white persons.”
That is the FOUNDERS’ INTENT.

 

Passed by the United States Congress,
“An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

TEXT SOURCE:
Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789 – March 3, 1791.
14 vols. to date.
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972-1995. 6:1516-1522
1 Stat. 103-104. edited version: De Pauw, Linda Grant, et al., eds.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:05 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Many laws from the 18th century are no longer on the books and that's fine. The founders gave us a method for changing the law. The reason we look for original intent is that in order to achieve rule of law one must know what that law means. For example, most people today would use the word "gather" rather than "assemble." But that doesn't mean that the right to assemble now only pertains to one's ability to shop at IKEA. The original intent of the law must be understood.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 14:19 | Link to Comment The Joker
The Joker's picture

We did listen to the founding fathers.  The Declaration of Independence begins with the sentence "We hold these thruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that this is a racial issue.  As far as I can see it is a power issue.  I can also see that all those in power, the Fed, the CBs, the Rothchildren, the Rockefellahs, most of congress, etc. are all WHITE. 

If you want to make it a racial issue then place the blame where it belongs, on Whitie, In the history of the US, black people have not been in a position to create or enforce any form of legislation.  You may not agree with Obama and his legislation but if you think he created all this mess, you are wrong.  This mess was started long ago.  On the other side of it, on the streets, what is the color of the skin of the people committing these mass murders? 

You seem like a nice enough individual but please stop it already with the race card, it's ignorant. 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 16:10 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The US imported a shit load of whites infected with the socialism and fascism diseases.

Now they are importing infected yellows, browns, and blacks.

 

Tue, 12/25/2012 - 09:21 | Link to Comment UNCOMPROMISED
UNCOMPROMISED's picture

Yes, but take a step back and look at the perverse lifestyle that these colors live. Rap, baby momma, 'get money nigga', 'where my check at', yo yo yo on and on.

Ignorance is worshiped in their culture. I tend to agree with the juice that these animals are worthy of 'freeman enslavement'.

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 12:56 | Link to Comment the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

consider this interview from Milos Forman (to the Czech people) "Do you want to live in a zoo or a jungle..?  if only we had the personal choice, and to what degree we desire jungleness, and zoo-like comforts... we all want to invest in the jungle, but call on the zookeeper when the lion steals our capital... and you have to understand the zookeeper doesn't have room for everybody... there is no way you can make a jungle into a zoo, but you can turn a zoo into a jungle, if you neglect to protect the widows and orphans who buy treasury bills, or you allow the worst kind of firearms to be sold to just about anyone...

in the past there was more jungle than zoo, but that's changing, now there's more zoo's than jungle, so we want to save the jungle.  it's a noble thought, and it seems unlikely that we will ever have a world which is equally divided between zoo and jungle, and we can choose between them.. (although we are pretty close now, except the zookeeper keeps bailing out the lions who can't make it on their own, while the lions (who still can't make it) get to keep the game they do kill, but the rest of us, in the zoo have to pay for all this. it sorta pisses us off and we say, give us some of that jungle too. then after we shoot up the jungle with our guns, we try to hide inside the zoo, but the swat team is waiting, (their counterparts in finance, the SEC,couldn't find the thieving lions with a search warrant when we all know where they live. so you see it doesn't pay to live through symbolism, like the wild west, and free guns for everybody... ) 

and potus doesn't have a clue, because he carries a zoo around with him everywhere (some call it policy on the symbolic level) which puts him out of touch. but then he gets a lot of money from wall street to do this job, to try to tell us that as our duly elected zoo keeper, he will protect us. the zookeeper must satisfy the patrons of the zoo, who stand behind the wire cage, in freedom. whatever Ron Paul is saying this. they won't let you in this zoo, as a patron, and you can't get there as an exhibit either, (the zoo is full) you live in a jungle, get used to it...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-14/forman3.html

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 16:16 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

This assumes the false beliefs that government has to be the zookeeper and that as zookeeper, does not simultaneously create a jungle.

Four hundred million dead by government in the 20th century.

 

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:00 | Link to Comment resurger
resurger's picture

I mean

"the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.   "

how much more can you be spot on Dr.

+5

Mon, 12/24/2012 - 13:01 | Link to Comment resurger
resurger's picture

reminds me of some motherfuckers i read about all day

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!