Dear lord, Ron Paul hit the nail directly on the head. Read this, he explained it way better than I or anyone could. Hes running for president in 2008. I would elect him in a heartbeat just from reading this, nothing else......
Ron Paul: Government Cannot Protect Us
Infowars.com |April 25, 2007
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.
d
)adj. bawd·i·er, bawd·i·est 1. Humorously coarse; risqué.
2. Vulgar; lewd.