Las Vegas Sun

January 27, 2015

Currently: 52° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Ron Paul criticizes NRA’s proposal for armed guards in schools

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.”

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 7 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. How does the saying go?

    "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!"

    I think having armed guards in schools will only increase violence, not make it less.

  2. "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."

    Amen to that! Too many posters fail to grasp the fundamentals of violence in human societies, and the underlying purpose of the Second Amendment, its state counterparts -- the state was never meant to have a monopoly on violence.

    "Lets get rid courts, lawyers, congress."

    CreatedEQL -- because the same Constitutions none of us will be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. You seem to not know even the fundamentals of this republic you live in. Start @ then maybe you can actually post something credible here.

    "It seems that murder is against the law yet we have many of them going on everyday."

    chuck333 -- funny how such a simple truth is ignored here, no?

    "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." -- post-Civil War slogan found @

  3. I'm a Ron Paul supporter but I disagree on this issue. I agree the fed shouldn't mandate armed guards, but if the state or city feels it's needed, they should be able to provide that service in their schools.

    Inner city schools I've read are line mini-prisons with doors that lock down after the bell rings, cameras, and armed guards everywhere. In non-violent areas like CT, this is unheard of. Should all schools embrace the inner city school model? No. However, you have to accept the fact that something like this might happen to your kids if their school doesn't have adequate security controls in place. I live in a nice neighborhood but I pay $50 a month for a security system / video monitoring. It makes me feel more secure when I leave town and when I come home, I don't have to wonder if an intruder is inside waiting to hit me over the head with something or slash my throat. I pay for that peace of mind and don't mind one bit. Are the taxpayers willing to pay for added security measures in our kids schools? I send my children to a private school that has locking doors and a good security system so that nobody can go on campus that doesn't belong there. I can afford to provide my kids with a safe environment so that they can focus on learning and not wonder about crazed gunmen and school massacres while they're at school. Should I as a tax payer have to fund this type of security at all public schools? Hell, I hope not! I'm already having to bank off shore to keep Obama's hands out of my pockets, I can't do anything about property taxes however, and that worries me. Once my kids grow up however, I'm sure I'll retire outside the USA as I see this as a Republic on the decline. A country that allows anyone to walk in and milk it's welfare system (at the tax payers expense) is a country that's not worth defending, supporting, or living in, and in time. If you have something valuable, you protect it! If you live in a dump, you leave your front door open and you don't care who comes in and makes themselves at home. Obviously the powers that be know something we don't about this countries future, I just read the signs and act accordingly.

  4. Guns represent an industry that is at least as lucrative as the funeral industry (and if these two giants ever hire the same Congressional lobbyists we are all in real trouble.)

    Heres the guns and money facts from

    "The American gun industry is worth $12 billion. The NRA's budget annual budget is $250 million; it depends not just on membership dues, but on lavish industry contributions. For instance, the gun-making firm Sturm Ruger just finished a one-year sweetheart deal with the NRA; it gave the NRA a dollar for every gun sold, and the NRA's take totaled $1.2 million. And the gun retailers get in on the act, too. The CEO of Cabela's, a hunting and outdoor gear chain, recently gave the NRA $1 million in cash."

    What does the NRA spend $250 million/year on? Lobbyists and campaign contributions for supporters in Congress are the biggest.

    On the board of directors of the NRA sits Grover Norquist, whose goal in life is to 'starve the beast', i.e. deny the Government tax income to make it shrivel...except when NRA profits are at stake.

    Grover, through Lapierre and the NRA now wants the Government to raise taxes to hire armed guards for every school to promote his economic base, which is far from starving the beast but that's just the beginning.

    Guards will also be needed in all movie theaters, shopping malls, school buses, iHOPs, Denny's - restaurants everywhere, markets, bus stops, public restrooms, beaches, parking garages (lots of crimes there), and have roving swat teams trolling the public libraries for lunatics who play military video games on computers.

    The NRA complains about taxes unless the taxes go to improve their profit margins. These guys are the most self centered ego-maniacs imaginable. The entire world is laughing at the most incredibly stupid number of morons that want to turn the entire country into another Afghanistan with police everywhere so that assault rifle owners can play hero in their sand boxes.

    Note that the NRA claims that guns prevent a government takeover of the country, except when the government guns are protecting NRA profits...

    From my point of view it is clear that the lunatics are in the NRA, not the libraries.

  5. For the most part, I agree with Commenter MickeyA.
    Proactive security plans must be discussed and decided upon by a case by case basis, with individual neighborhood schools with the most affected people directly involved, the neighbor school's parents/families in the decision making conversation and process.

    All this "protection" comes at a great cost of our USA Constitutional, individual and collective rights and liberties. That is serious stuff, and it really should be put to a National vote, instead of having our dysfunctual government and its far from representative representatives making this critical decision. We already have seen the incredible lack of concern for the little guy American, with their voting to make corporations into people (back by lobbyists Citizens United). Need I say more?

    Blessings and Peace,

  6. "Proactive security plans must be discussed and decided upon by a case by case basis, with individual neighborhood schools with the most affected people directly involved, the neighbor school's parents/families in the decision making conversation and process."

    star -- your post reminds me of a picture from the aftermath of a post-Katrina storm in a south Texas neighborhood. It was of a big piece of plywood with the spray-painted message to the effect of "LOOTERS WILL BE SHOT." The locals were gathered around it displaying their firearms. Now that's exactly what the Second Amendment was meant to protect.

    Contrast that with New Orleans during Katrina. The military 1) searched and took all weapons from everyone lined up for refuge in the downtown sports dome, and 2) went door-to-door searching and taking all guns. A non-NRA gun rights group sued and forced the feds to give the guns back.

    Now consider who were the good guys during those periods of temporary anarchy. It wasn't government.

    "...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. (slip opinion at 64) (2008)

  7. KillerB: I "get" these tragedies have already happened. It is a shame that folks don't bother themselves or involve themselves with planning until AFTER something terrible has happened. One of the problems is that organizations or systems tend to leave citizens out of the loop, curtailing their (the affected citizen's) say, and limiting the resulting buy in with implementing proactive strategies or measures.

    Folks tend to be resistant towards top-down mandates because they have not been given an opportunity to be a part of the decision-making process from the get-go. Who wants a dictator style of governance?

    Blessings and Peace,