Like many of you, we have more than one iron in the fire this Christmas Eve in our neck of the woods. So, just for a quick ‘Question of the Day’…thought I’d throw some words from Ron Paul out there for you to chew on. After you contemplate what he stated, see if you agree or disagree with his way of thinking when it comes to the direction the NRA wants to go when it comes to more federal government control after the tragedy at Sandy Hook, gun control, etc.
Here’s what he had to say:
Outgoing Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) distanced himself Monday from a National Rifle Association proposal to place armed guards at every school, saying “government security is just another kind of violence.”
He said the federal government should not try to “pursue unobtainable safety” with state-sanctioned security and claimed Democratic and Republican lawmakers have “zero moral authority to legislate against violence.”
“This is the world of government provided ‘security,’ a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse,” Paul said in a statement on his website. “School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.”
He continued: “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.”
In his criticism of progressives calling for more gun restrictions, Paul said new laws won’t dissuade or prevent a madman with a gun from killing innocents.
“Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control,” he said. “This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government ‘do something’ to protect us in the wake of national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. … But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.”
Throw out your thoughts about this…Fire Away – Inquiring Minds Want to Know!