Ron Paul is a Numbskull!

ADK

New member
"Ron Paul breaks with NRA on armed guards in nation's schools."

This is why RP's bid for the White House went nowhere. When a sensible solution to a serious problem is offered by the NRA old knucklehead gives the anti's all the ammunition they need to shoot it down. What is RP's solution? Ignore the problem and it will go away? More gun laws? That old geezer needs a nursing home.
cursing.gif


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...ards-in-schools
 
He is saying that the federal government should not be involved. And, he makes a good point. The federal govt only knows one size fits all solutions when it comes to schools. I think we can all agree, that something of this nature would be best handled at the local level. We don't need another bureaucracy in Washington who is disconnected with the rest of the country.

As he writes.

Quote:“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. 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.”

But Paul also denounced the right for proposing increased federal involvement in the daily lives of citizens as a solution.

“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.”

He is retiring at the end of the month. So you don't have to worry about there being a pesky politician in Washington standing up for your rights or the constitution. Keep voting establishment Republican. It obviously has done you well.
 
I was doing some last minute Christmas shopping recently at the mall. As I walked thru the mall I observed two uniformed security officers,unarmed but security officers. It was getting late so many of the shops were closing. I watched as the electronic stainless steel security gates closed at the shop entrances. As I left the mall I saw a state police car and a mall security vehicle parked out front. Apparantly that was the typical level of security for that mall.
I could'nt help but make the contrast in my mind between the level of security at the mall and the security at a typical school. There is no security at a typical school. No uniformed security officers,no electronic security gates,no police with guns and no alarm system wired directly thru to the local police station. The only security in our local schools is for the teachers to start making phone calls via their "phone tree" if shots are fired in the school. Should a situation occur the teachers are expected to secure their students in the classroom and lock the classroom door.
Poleski,I suspect that if you and RP had your way there would be no CIA,no FBI and no military as you would consider them to be an unnecessary intrusion into your personal freedom. Ron Paul considers himself to be a libertarian. I consider RP to be an anarchist.
 
We do need those organizations. But they need to be held in check just like Washington. This nonsense that they no longer need to seek permission from a judge to intrude into our lives is absurd. And it should piss off every American.
 
I went to a school in a town of 1600. We had a cop on duty every day at our school. To this day they still have a cop on duty every day there. He doesnt always wear his uniform most the time he wears regular clothes. He has his badge on his badge on his belt along with his gun radio and cuffs. this is his 5 day a week job. He is still a city cop but the school is his post. I remember the first day he started at the school because it was my first day as a freshman. That is what everybody was talking about his how now we have a cop at our school and nobody knew why. Well about 10 mins into that first day he got his first test. Pop quiz. One of the students for some reason I dont know why but he pushed the principal down. Then he took off running down the hall. Now this kid was a trouble maker and I dont think he knew what he just got himself into. That officer chased him down the hall cought him by slamming him off two walls before they hit the ground. That student cussed him up down while that officer cuffed him. He was charged with assault. From there on everybody knew not to mess with ol officer danks. On the othere side of that he was still a cop and he would do his police work in the school. Finding out where the parties were or who was selling drugs etc... I think it was a good idea and it worked. That was 12 years ago. So I dont understand why everybody makes it seem like it would be so hard to put armed guards in the schools. We had one and they still do. One cop from the local police station. Why is that so hard. Its not like they have to hire someone for the job. Its not like its costing them more money or even the school money. I think it was a good idea and I seen how it worked first hand
 
Originally Posted By: PoleskiHe is saying that the federal government should not be involved. And, he makes a good point. The federal govt only knows one size fits all solutions when it comes to schools. I think we can all agree, that something of this nature would be best handled at the local level. We don't need another bureaucracy in Washington who is disconnected with the rest of the country.

As he writes.

Quote:“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. 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.”

But Paul also denounced the right for proposing increased federal involvement in the daily lives of citizens as a solution.

“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.”

He is retiring at the end of the month. So you don't have to worry about there being a pesky politician in Washington standing up for your rights or the constitution. Keep voting establishment Republican. It obviously has done you well.

All right then, genius what is your answer to this situation. And DON"T run off at the mouth, lets hear your input.
 
Originally Posted By: PoleskiWe do need those organizations. But they need to be held in check just like Washington. This nonsense that they no longer need to seek permission from a judge to intrude into our lives is absurd. And it should piss off every American.

So we need no Military? That's the most asinine, ridiculous, and just plain DUMB comment to ever come off your keyboard.

I'll admit when I'm incorrect. I miss read Poleski's comment. And I have to say I agree with the fact the Patriot Act, Indefinite Detention, etc is just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: pahntr760Originally Posted By: PoleskiWe do need those organizations. But they need to be held in check just like Washington. This nonsense that they no longer need to seek permission from a judge to intrude into our lives is absurd. And it should piss off every American.

So we need no Military? That's the most asinine, ridiculous, and just plain DUMB comment to ever come off your keyboard.

I don't see where he said we need no military. I suspect he was talking more about the Patriot Act, and the size and uselessness of the TSA and DHS. I think that everyone on this board would agree we need military.

What you may get some discussion on is do we need the size/distribution of the military military we have. Having troops stationed in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea is a good idea because of their hostility/proximity to hostility. But why do we have more troops in Germany and Japan than we do in Hawaii? They both have very strong economies, thanks to the US, and should either be protecting their own countries or paying for the protection we are providing.
 
Originally Posted By: ADKPoleski,I suspect that if you and RP had your way there would be no CIA,no FBI and no military as you would consider them to be an unnecessary intrusion into your personal freedom. Ron Paul considers himself to be a libertarian. I consider RP to be an anarchist.


Originally Posted By: PoleskiWe do need those organizations. But they need to be held in check just like Washington. This nonsense that they no longer need to seek permission from a judge to intrude into our lives is absurd. And it should piss off every American.

Sorry, I miss read it.
 
forget about it Poleski...It's too late for some of our old senile friends, It's amazing that such an easy concept can be so hard to grasp.
 
"What you may get some discussion on is do we need the size/distribution of the military military we have. Having troops stationed in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea is a good idea because of their hostility/proximity to hostility. But why do we have more troops in Germany and Japan than we do in Hawaii? They both have very strong economies, thanks to the US, and should either be protecting their own countries or paying for the protection we are providing."



I say bring them home if the county we are providing security for doesn't want to pay for the service. That would cut down on our spending right there. Also, no more aid to countries that hate us, humanitian or otherwise.
 
Originally Posted By: swampwalkerforget about it Poleski...It's too late for some of our old senile friends, It's amazing that such an easy concept can be so hard to grasp.

I'm not one to give up. These people on here that hate me already have one foot in the liberty boat. Deep down they know they always have. I'm just trying to get them to take off that shackle and chain they have around their other foot keeping them attached to a corrupt republican party. As soon as they come to the same conclusion that I have that the republican party has become nothing more than big government liberals.


(---R--------0--------D---) The way it use to pan out

(---------X--0------------) Where it normally got us

(---------R--0--------D---) What we have to choose from now

(------------0----X-------) What we have become



If we want change, we must change the republican party first.



I have no answers on how to combat this problem we have. But I do have the knowledge of history on my side when I say Washington only finds a way to make things more expensive, and less effective when it has to do with anything.
 
I started this thread in response to this: "Ron Paul breaks with NRA on armed guards in nation's schools." Please do not allow the Paulbots to morph the thread into an argument about the virtues of Ron Paul. RP lost his bid and I doubt he will run again. And pardon me if I fail to recognize that being a Libertarian is the wave of the future among America's younger generation.
rolleyes.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ADKI started this thread in response to this: "Ron Paul breaks with NRA on armed guards in nation's schools." Please do not allow the Paulbots to morph the thread into an argument about the virtues of Ron Paul. RP lost his bid and I doubt he will run again. And pardon me if I fail to recognize that being a Libertarian is the wave of the future among America's younger generation.
rolleyes.gif


Wait you started a thread about Ron Paul, and unless you're here to agree with you, we need not post about Ron Paul? Is this just another thread about the NRA and I'm off topic?

Ron Paul is looking at this from a federal standpoint. And he points out, (in my words) Do we want, and are we ready to have the TSA in our schools? Paul says no. Does that make him a numbskull, or is that a liberal response to not being able to accept a differing perspective?
 
Last edited:
Poleski,I recommend that you read the Libertarian Party Platform for 2012. Your position is at odds with your professed political party affiliation as indicated below:

"Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm." 1.5-Crime and Justice

1.5 Crime and Justice
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.


1.6 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition

http://www.lp.org/platform
 
Say what you want,I think we would all do back flips if RP were President instead of the currant occupant of the White House,er uh Hawaii.......
 
Last edited:
Back
Top