Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence

							Government Security is Just Another
Kind of Violence
Ron Paul
Infowars.com
December 24, 2012




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.
The Economist Calls For Repealing
Second Amendment
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
December 24, 2012

Banker-owned publication tells Americans “If you want to be safer, change the constitution”
The Economist has called for “drastic gun
control” in the wake of the Sandy Hook
tragedy, saying that the Constitution
should be amended to ban all guns on a
national scale.
In a brazen editorial published on its
website this past weekend, the Bilderberg
endorsed outlet notes “If America is ever
to confront its obsession with guns, that
time is now.”
The piece compares Adam Lanza’s
rampage in Newtown to an incident in
China, where a deranged maniac recently
attacked a classroom of children with a
knife. Because firearms are banned in the
Communist state, none of the children
were killed. ” Every country has its madmen” argues the editorial, intimating that living under a
tyrannical government regime is preferable because your children are safer.
The article also compares US murder rates to those of Britain and Germany, contending that more guns
equates to more homicides. ” America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s” the editorial
suggests, without noting that the population of the US is approximately six times larger than that of
Britain, and that when firearms were banned in the UK, gun crime exploded.
                                            The piece then calls for the reinstatement of the assault rifle
                                            ban and an end to “gun-show exemption” from background
                                            checks, before outright calling for the repeal of the Second
                                            Amendment.
                                            “If you want to be safer, change the constitution” the
                                            editorial suggests, in a remark that would have Benjamin
                                            Franklin spinning. “The great bulk of America’s murders are
                                            committed with ‘ordinary’ handguns,” the piece adds,
                                            arguing that gun control legislation needs to become all
                                            encompassing. Handgun bans, such as those that operated in
                                            Chicago and Washington, DC, before the Supreme Court
                                            struck them down, would be needed on a national scale.” the
                                            piece continues.
“Gun licences, obtainable only
after extensive police and medical
review as in most other civilised
countries, would be needed for
hunting and sporting weapons.”
the editorial adds, outlining a plan
for full scale disarmament of the
American people.
“Tough police action, coupled
with an extensive “buy-back”
programme, would be needed to
mop up the hundreds of millions
of guns that are already held.” the
piece adds, ridiculously
comparing taking guns away
from Americans to sweeping
some sort of unsightly mess
under the rug.
“If, as seems probable, this is held to conflict with the constitution, then the constitution needs to be
amended.” the piece states in a final audacious and tawdry conclusion.
The editors admit that “None of this is likely to happen soon”; too right, not before a full scale civil war
breaks out. Of course, one would fully expect this kind of offering from a British based “newspaper”
                               that is for the most part owned by the Rothschild banking family and a
                               group of shareholders intrinsically tied to the world’s megabanks.
                                 The piece represents the latest knee jerk and unconsidered offering from
                                 the corporate media, calling for completely disarming and re-educating
                                 the populace.
                                 A week ago Reuters argued that “Obama should treat gun control like
                                 LBJ did civil rights”, outlining a plan for gun-control education
                                 programs to be initiated in schools.
                                 A horde of Hollywood celebrities have also jumped on the gun control
                                 bandwagon, without hesitation and without consideration that the
                                 disengaged unreality of mass culture many of them ceaselessly promote
                                 could be more of a major factor in such rare and tragic acts of wanton
                                 violence.
WHICH EVER SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE CALLING FOR ANY GUN CONTROL
THEY HAVE EXPOSED THEM SELVES AS TRAITORS TO THE TRUE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES ITS PEOPLE THATS RIGHT DOUCHEBAGS IN CONGRESS WE
THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT THE MORE YOU PUSH THE MORE THE
SLEEPING GIANT WAKES UP JUST KEEP PUSHING
Hollywood And Mafia Openly Call For Gun Ban VIDEO BELOW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cMM_HgPxJpg

            http://www.infowars.com/