Ron Paul talks about Virginia Tech shooting.


PDA






araiford
May 22, 2007, 11:54 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul383.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul talks about Virginia Tech shooting." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
skinnyguy
May 22, 2007, 12:01 PM
Text from the above link;Security and Liberty
by Ron Paul

The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.

The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? 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?

I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government-mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. 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. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

Soybomb
May 22, 2007, 12:53 PM
Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
Man I like him.

ServiceSoon
May 22, 2007, 12:55 PM
+1

K3
May 22, 2007, 12:57 PM
What's really interesting is that so many consider him a wingnut. It shows how conditioned the flock is when they view things like liberty and freedom as fringe concepts.

I guess Jefferson, Madison, and their pals were wingnuts too.

Well, Rep. Paul's positions are closer to mine than any other pol's, so he gets my vote one way or another. Even if I have to write him in, I'll vote for him.

The problem is that there are few people like him aspiring to public office. Some start out on the right track but get swept up by the system and start spouting off about 'commonsense' gun laws (I hate that term) and necessary public safety measures for the dangerous times we live in.

We be in a bit of trouble. Despite an increasing number of states adopting CCW, Castle Doctrine laws, and other firearm friendly policies, it is my belief that the bleeding is only being slowed by these measures.

SoCalShooter
May 22, 2007, 01:30 PM
^ +1 for that post.

Rachen
May 22, 2007, 03:21 PM
He is already winning.
Remember what Comrade Mao Zedong said about a "People's War". It's about mobilizing everybody, and every available resource.
With the gun owners and the conservative parties forming a firm and powerful wall at the debating table, we can make comebacks against the anti's comments more effectively. In the 1980s, the lead singer of the metal band "Twisted Sisters" won a lawsuit filed against him by the Democrats because he made terrific use of words and legal terms. The Democrats thought an oddball who dressed like him would not have enough academic knowledge to pull off such a defense. And they were proven wrong.

Ron Paul, if he is campaigning alongside the Republicans, should establish firm networks within the Republican Party in order to draw in all the conservatives, and exclude the "fake" ones that support gun control.

RevolvingCylinder
May 22, 2007, 03:26 PM
The band name is "Twisted Sister" and the man's name is Dee Snyder.

MrRezister
May 22, 2007, 03:37 PM
:what:
I see we have another thread full of starry-eyed know-nothings. It's ok, I was once like you. I came in here a few days ago, spouting my silly rhetoric supporting Dr. Ron Paul, but my eyes have been opened, praise Gawd!

In just a few days, I have been informed of a few things about the good Dr. Paul:
1) He is an extremist.
2) He is a conspiracy whackjob.
3) He is not a viable candidate for the office of President of the United States.

When I asked for details about these accusations, I found out that it was mostly because Ron Paul dares to disagree with the current administration's view on foriegn policy. It seems this wacky liberal-in-republican's-clothing thinks that America should not intervene in foriegn affairs, and should stick to diplomacy as much as possible. Clearly this crazyman is not worthy of your vote. Do yourselves a favor. Vote for Romney, or Guiliani, or someone else who can save us from Clintbama, regardless of wether or not you agree with their positions on the issues you "think" are important.

This public service announcement brought to you courtesy of the GOP-at-large.

Rachen
May 22, 2007, 06:09 PM
Long time since I saw the documentary about him. Yes Dee Snyder is that name.:)

Crunker1337
May 22, 2007, 06:39 PM
If heavily armed citizens don't discourage violence, how come no one's ever attacked Knob Creek?

brickeyee
May 22, 2007, 07:02 PM
"Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted."

When are these fools going to get the facts right???
Outside of ONE school in the state, it is POLICY of the schools that does not allow carry.
As a non-student I can carry when I visit.
A bunch of folks had to die so that everyone can "feel safer".

And Ron Paul just went way down for not bothering to check his facts.
The Code of Virginia is online and searchable.

Flyboy
May 22, 2007, 07:03 PM
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference.
--Ron Paul

What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
--Rudy Guiliani

JohnL2
May 22, 2007, 07:20 PM
He sounds like an old school Republican to me. Unfortunately, not many people these days can tell the difference.

pacodelahoya
May 22, 2007, 07:21 PM
Mr. Rezister,

You forgot that he does not look presidential and that he is not a very charismatic speaker.

High Planes Drifter
May 22, 2007, 07:47 PM
Mr. Rezistor, I had to read your post more than once to detect the sarcasm in it. Very Funny once you get it, thumbs up to you.

Autolycus
May 22, 2007, 08:11 PM
Mr. Rezistor: So anyone who does not agree with American foreign policy is a wackjob? Thats great.

I guess that means THR has a lot of wacko's on it.

What if I told you I would rather vote for Obama or Hillary than Fred Thompson and Dick Cheney? Because I would.

Cesiumsponge
May 22, 2007, 08:21 PM
The man that invents a sarcasm button for the Internet would be instantly rich.

Anyhow its sad that people have been conditioned to see people like Ron Paul as fringe nuts when those "nutty ideas" of responsibility, liberty, and individualism were exactly what founded our country.

lamazza
May 22, 2007, 08:21 PM
Mr. Rezistor
That was sarcasm...right?

Geister
May 22, 2007, 09:53 PM
I agree, K3. It makes me uneasy to see so many people on this board holding out for Fred Thompson.

Juna
May 22, 2007, 09:55 PM
I totally concur. Ron Paul is outstanding. He's like a modern-day framer of the Constitution. Fred Thompson is better than the remainder, but Paul is the best by far, IMO. The rest of the candidates make me want to projectile vomit and catch it in my mouth. :barf:

pdowg881
May 22, 2007, 09:56 PM
Am I correct in hearing that Thompson supported the Patriot Act? If so I don't care whether he can win or not, the Patriot Act goes against everything I believe. I don't care If Paul can win or not either. I support and share his views and want my vote to be counted for him.

High Planes Drifter
May 22, 2007, 10:00 PM
Mr. Rezistor: So anyone who does not agree with American foreign policy is a wackjob? Thats great.

I guess that means THR has a lot of wacko's on it.

What if I told you I would rather vote for Obama or Hillary than Fred Thompson and Dick Cheney? Because I would.

Tecumseh, Im pretty sure from reading some of Mr. Rezistors posts on other threads that his post was full of sarcasm, and rather funny when you read it as intended. Again Im making this assumption based on his postings on other threads.

Juna
May 22, 2007, 10:01 PM
Yes, he was being sarcastic.

skinnyguy
May 22, 2007, 10:08 PM
It really doesn't matter if the Va Tech policy or the law prohibited carry on school grouds. If you get caught carrying on campus, whether the law prohibits it or not, the "law" will be called. You will be charged with a MINIMUM of trespassing, you will be screwed.

R127
May 22, 2007, 10:13 PM
Am I correct in hearing that Thompson supported the Patriot Act? If so I don't care whether he can win or not, the Patriot Act goes against everything I believe. I don't care If Paul can win or not either. I support and share his views and want my vote to be counted for him.

I have a thread going on Fred Thompson right now. It isn't to bash or boost him, just to get familiar since I didn't know much about him. His voting record is posted in the thread. He voted for both the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department Of Homeland Security. The rest of his record doesn't look as bad so far but PA and DHS are two huge marks against him in my book. Both are anti-freedom and anti-American to the core and neither does a thing to make the country safer though they manage to threaten internal stability by heigtening tensions between freedom loving citizens and the growing authoritarian police state.

atblis
May 22, 2007, 10:26 PM
I guess that means THR has a lot of wacko's on it.


uhhh, yeah.

helpless
May 22, 2007, 10:57 PM
Wow Ron Paul is a total Nut Job Wacko.

If anyone wants to use my sarcasm that button send me a pm.

orionengnr
May 22, 2007, 11:17 PM
What if I told you I would rather vote for Obama or Hillary than Fred Thompson and Dick Cheney? Because I would.

Then, I guess, I would really wonder about you...

...and hope that you are not old enough to vote.

Of course, being from Illinois, your electoral vote is already counted. So don't bother. Please.

Beagle-zebub
May 22, 2007, 11:54 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Ron Paul support a return to the gold standard? Plenty reasonable people think that is nutty.

MrRezister
May 23, 2007, 08:23 AM
Beagle-zebub says:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Ron Paul support a return to the gold standard? Plenty reasonable people think that is nutty.

A return to the gold standard does sound out there a bit, but I think Paul has got the right general idea - that being the abolition of the Federal Reserve. In his own words:

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.
Source:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm

Ron Paul's primary motivation on all issues seems to be a return to the Constitution. It may prove an unpopular position with the general voting public, but it could also be just what America needs right now. I think that he could be the best thing to happen to America in a long time, and I'll support him until he does something to make me think otherwise.

And for those who wondered, yes my previous post in this thread was slathered with sarcasm, as thick as I could lay it on over the internet.

samtechlan
May 23, 2007, 08:44 AM
I don't think you would have a stronger supporter of the 2nd Amendment than Ron Paul in the race even if Chuck Heston and Wayne Lapierre were also presidential candidates.

Outlaw Man
May 23, 2007, 09:21 AM
I think you're right, samtechlan.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul talks about Virginia Tech shooting." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!