• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence
 

Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence

on

  • 463 views

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined ...

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
463
Views on SlideShare
463
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence Document Transcript

    • Government Security is Just AnotherKind of ViolenceRon PaulInfowars.comDecember 24, 2012The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determinedindividual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticutalready 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 usin the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that ifwe simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can beprevented. 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 solutionsto gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be schoolshooters will be dissuaded or stopped.
    • While I certainly agree that more gunsequals less crime and that private gunownership prevents many shootings, Idon’t agree that conservatives andlibertarians should view governmentlegislation, especially at the federal level,as the solution to violence. Real changecan happen only when we commitourselves to rebuilding civil society inAmerica, meaning a society based onfamily, religion, civic and socialinstitutions, and peaceful cooperationthrough markets. We cannot reversedecades of moral and intellectual declineby snapping our fingers and passing laws.Let’s not forget that our own governmentpolicies often undermine civil society,cheapen life, and encourage immorality.The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endlessundeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody inAmerica 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 Hookshooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moralauthority to legislate against violence.Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metaldetectors, 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 whileuniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided “security,” a world fartoo many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, donot justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit everydisaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that libertyis more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a worldwithout risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian societywould even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over itscitizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role isto protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of HomelandSecurity. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not bysafety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given truemeaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.
    • The Economist Calls For RepealingSecond AmendmentSteve WatsonInfowars.comDecember 24, 2012Banker-owned publication tells Americans “If you want to be safer, change the constitution”The Economist has called for “drastic guncontrol” in the wake of the Sandy Hooktragedy, saying that the Constitutionshould be amended to ban all guns on anational scale.In a brazen editorial published on itswebsite this past weekend, the Bilderbergendorsed outlet notes “If America is everto confront its obsession with guns, thattime is now.”The piece compares Adam Lanza’srampage in Newtown to an incident inChina, where a deranged maniac recentlyattacked a classroom of children with aknife. Because firearms are banned in theCommunist state, none of the childrenwere killed. ” Every country has its madmen” argues the editorial, intimating that living under atyrannical 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 gunsequates to more homicides. ” America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s” the editorialsuggests, without noting that the population of the US is approximately six times larger than that ofBritain, 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 onlyafter extensive police and medicalreview as in most other civilisedcountries, would be needed forhunting and sporting weapons.”the editorial adds, outlining a planfor full scale disarmament of theAmerican people.“Tough police action, coupledwith an extensive “buy-back”programme, would be needed tomop up the hundreds of millionsof guns that are already held.” thepiece adds, ridiculouslycomparing taking guns awayfrom Americans to sweepingsome sort of unsightly messunder the rug.“If, as seems probable, this is held to conflict with the constitution, then the constitution needs to beamended.” 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 warbreaks 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 CONTROLTHEY HAVE EXPOSED THEM SELVES AS TRAITORS TO THE TRUE GOVERNMENT OFTHE UNITED STATES ITS PEOPLE THATS RIGHT DOUCHEBAGS IN CONGRESS WETHE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT THE MORE YOU PUSH THE MORE THESLEEPING GIANT WAKES UP JUST KEEP PUSHINGHollywood And Mafia Openly Call For Gun Ban VIDEO BELOWhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cMM_HgPxJpg http://www.infowars.com/