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.
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." 

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.

Citxmech's picture

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

blunderdog's picture

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

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, liberty and property.

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


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.

yrbmegr's picture

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

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.

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?


Ralph Spoilsport's picture

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

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.  

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...

Nota bene's picture

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

Uncle Remus's picture

Kindly try not to step in front of it then.

DaveyJones's picture

- or any really tall buildings

Citxmech's picture

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

Turin Turambar's picture

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

fuu's picture

You wasted your only ever post on a false equivalent?

You deserve to be Beaten On.

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?


Abaco's picture

or beating his dumb ass with a bat.

delacroix's picture

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

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.

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?'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]


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.

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?

DosZap's picture

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


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

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.

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.


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)


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

Flakmeister's picture

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

Somehow, I doubt it...

Spastica Rex's picture

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

I'm an obsolete man.

GMadScientist's picture

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

Spastica Rex's picture

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Anusocracy's picture

You have a complete misunderstanding.

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


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.

Rustysilver's picture


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

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.


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

dogbreath's picture

Found it.  enjoy

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.

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?

Uncle Remus's picture

You conflate safety with convenience.