Will 'Extreme Security' Solve The School Shooting Problem? - Ron Paul Liberty Report

[bunklocoempire]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/vS5krYoxoUoL/
(VIDEO - BitChute is an alternative to YouTube)
https://www.pictshare.net/nqxrgfioao.jpg
Will 'Extreme Security' Solve The School Shooting Problem?
Video Thursday, February 22, 2018 Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams
Written by Daniel McAdams
Should we make schools even more like prisons to keep kids safe from mass shootings? Should we further restrict firearm ownership among private citizens? Is that the problem? Or is there a deeper problem in our society that is making some people violent? How about the Pentagon's involvement in the production of some 1,800 films and television programs that portray it in a favorable light? Is it the military-industrial complex that survives and thrives from Washington's aggressive foreign policy -- which relies on keeping people frightened to drum up support? Tune in to today's Liberty Report:
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/february/22/will-extreme-security-solve-the-school-shooting-problem/
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/will-extreme-security-solve-the-school-shooting-problem

Copyright © 2018 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X79fDB73O2w

[Republicanguy]

What does 9/11 have to do with guns? Mr Paul completely went off the subject there with that example. There are murders every day in America due to use of guns, intentionally or by accident. Here in Greater London people can die of stabbings, but a whole group of people aren't going to be taken out like what happened last week in Florida.

While it is true, there weren't school shootings in 1918, but that doesn't mean that the present was like the past, just as the future will be different, technology may change the second Amendment.

If the second Amendment didn't exist, which couldn't happen, since there are too many weapons in society, including the military.

Cultural Marxists don't want to destroy society, Mr Paul is wrong.

[acptulsa]

What does 9/11 have to do with guns? Mr Paul completely went off the subject there with that example.

The fact that you can't follow a conversation does not make the conversation invalid.


There are murders every day in America due to use of guns, intentionally or by accident. Here in Greater London people can die of stabbings, but a whole group of people aren't going to be taken out like what happened last week in Florida.

Just think how many lives would have been saved over the decades if only the IRA had the courtesy to buy that bullshit.


If the second Amendment didn't exist, which couldn't happen, since there are too many weapons in society, including the military.

That's the most intelligent and realistic thing you've ever posted here. And it isn't even a complete sentence!


Cultural Marxists don't want to destroy society, Mr Paul is wrong.

They could hardly do it to Soviet society. To American society they could hardly do anything else.

[DamianTV]

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

---

The other half of even the opening statement "Extreme Security" has a tremendous psychological impact in children also by altering an "environment of education" to more closely resemble a Prison Camp than a place of learning. I think we all know schools no longer have anything to do with learning.

[Republicanguy]

The fact that you can't follow a conversation does not make the conversation invalid.



Just think how many lives would have been saved over the decades if only the IRA had the courtesy to buy that bullshit.



That's the most intelligent and realistic thing you've ever posted here. And it isn't even a complete sentence!



They could hardly do it to Soviet society. To American society they could hardly do anything else.

The terrorism there was the result of bad policy. That didn't need to happen or the arms being smuggled from Libya, and so on.

[acptulsa]

The terrorism there was the result of bad policy. That didn't need to happen or the arms being smuggled from Libya, and so on.

Ever hear of Ariana?

Save your sense of false superiority for people who don't pay attention to international news. We know better.

[Republicanguy]

Ariana?

[acptulsa]

Ariana?

LOL

Never mind you refuse to learn from history, and want us to relive it. You're completely oblivious to what are practically current events too.

Tell us more about how the people of the U.K. being disarmed and helpless victims makes it impossible to manage a mass killing in the Tube, or in Manchester. Please. We love entertainment.

[Republicanguy]

What you state doesn't make any sense. What does Ulster province have to do with 9/11? Or the shooting in particular?

There is a lot of extreme views on here. Some don't make much sense. The left is out to destroy everything!! Welfare can never substitute for two parents, true, but not many people care.

[euphemia]

What does 9/11 have to do with guns? Mr Paul completely went off the subject there with that example. There are murders every day in America due to use of guns, intentionally or by accident. Here in Greater London people can die of stabbings, but a whole group of people aren't going to be taken out like what happened last week in Florida.

No, they just go into an Ariana Grande concert with bomb and kill 22 people. Injured 50 or so, if I recall.

[acptulsa]

RG: Mass attacks can't happen in England because we're disarmed and helpless.

What about the IRA?

RG: That's a bad example because unfortunate policy.

What about the Ariana Grande concert?

RG: The what?

What about the Tube attack?

RG: What has that got to do with whole groups of Londoners being killed? You people are too extreme.

Dude. You can't even come to a battle if wits properly armed. If you don't want to be able to do anything but bend down and kiss your ass goodbye, that's fine. But you are not going to be able to talk us into being content to do the same.

[Republicanguy]

That doesn't make any sense. A bomb isn't a gun. The kid shot the place up.

There are numerous music videos of Columbine on youtube. It may be cool to be bad or evil, the clips show fantasy. Rock music, hip hop beats. I've seen the image of the guys dead in the library image. Eerie Suicide is self expression I once heard in a song, if that made any sense, may be that image in numerous clips on youtube might mean something.

[acptulsa]

That doesn't make any sense. A bomb isn't a gun. The kid shot the place up.

Ah, of course. Bombs being illegal doesn't prevent them from existing, but guns being illegal does prevent them from existing.

How could we have overlooked such infallible logic?

[Republicanguy]

These incidents were caused by guns. The earliest school shooting may of been 1927. And then there was the shooting in 1979. December 1974.

1966, don't recall that particular shooting, some guy shooting out of a clock tower at people.

[acptulsa]

Years of research in the schools’ archives has shed light on tales of master’s held at sword-point, mass walkouts and battles so intense they required the intervention of a militia, the Daily Telegraph reported.

There are even records of one gunpowder plot.

1927, was it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027182/Gunpowder-plots-prefect-revolutions-barricades-Secret-rebellious-history-Britain-s-prestigious-public-schools-including-Eton.html

[Republicanguy]

Yes in America the first school shooting was in the late 1920's.

[acptulsa]

You seem to be a little slow on the uptake when it comes to taking hints. So, let me use words of two syllables or less, so you can get the message:

Come back and lecture us when England's shit no longer stinks.

[CCTelander]

That doesn't make any sense. A bomb isn't a gun. The kid shot the place up.




"A bomb isn't a gun"? Completely irrelevant unless people murdered in an intentional bomb blast are somehow, miraculously less dead than those murdered with a firearm.

[CCTelander]

Ah, of course. Bombs being illegal doesn't prevent them from existing, but guns being illegal does prevent them from existing.

How could we have overlooked such infallible logic?


I'd +rep you if I could.

[CCTelander]

These incidents were caused by guns. The earliest school shooting may of been 1927. And then there was the shooting in 1979. December 1974.

1966, don't recall that particular shooting, some guy shooting out of a clock tower at people.


"Caused by guns"?

Damn those evil guns! Always jumping up into people's hands, dragging those people out to places filled with innocent, helpless (read disarmed) victims and forcing them to pull the trigger!

Of course! It's so obvious now. /s

[Danke]

"Caused by guns"?

Damn those evil guns! Always jumping up into people's hands, dragging those people out to places filled with innocent, helpless (read disarmed) victims and forcing them to pull the trigger!

Of course! It's so obvious now. /s


My guns are innocent. They never leave the closet without my permission.

[nikcers]

"Caused by guns"?

Damn those evil guns! Always jumping up into people's hands, dragging those people out to places filled with innocent, helpless (read disarmed) victims and forcing them to pull the trigger!

Of course! It's so obvious now. /s
I once had gun
Or should I say she once had me

[Danke]

I once had gun
Or should I say she once had me


Was it made of Norwegian wood?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zei3xnivwFk

[Danke]

What you state doesn't make any sense. What does Ulster province have to do with 9/11? Or the shooting in particular?

There is a lot of extreme views on here. Some don't make much sense. The left is out to destroy everything!! Welfare can never substitute for two parents, true, but not many people care.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLXyB5GtfBU

[Republicanguy]

^That is just rubbish.

As for America, guns are a big problem.

Some of the columbine music video clips are rude, and crude, so if you don't want to be reminded by death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUL298cOZzQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs9o8XOG-x0

[acptulsa]

^That is just rubbish.

Suppose it is (and I'm not saying it's so). What of it? Do you think you have a monopoly on posting rubbish to this site?


As for America, guns are a big problem.

Mine aren't. I load them, I aim them, a hole appears in a paper target. No problem.

The bullets couldn't possibly reach you from here. You're surely not stupid enough to come over here and pull a gun on me. What's your problem with it?

[Republicanguy]

The problem is, what happened on valentines day, this former student shot those students.

You want the freedom to own without a state government taking them away from you because of a loose cannon like Mr Cruz who has ruined lives and his own.

As liberating as it may be for me to want to own a weapon in the social home I live in, I wouldn't want to. Even if my neighbors in the area may not be nice, it just adds to the problem.

If I were a governor, I'd support banning weapons in the whole state of what ever. Even if it left me with 2% rating, and no reelection.

[acptulsa]

As liberating as it may be for me to want to own a weapon in the social home I live in, I wouldn't want to. Even if my neighbors in the area may not be nice, it just adds to the problem.

Do good nations with nuclear weapons add to the problem of scary nations having nuclear weapons?

Dude, my state has some of the highest rates of gun ownership in the nation. We do not have mass shootings. Doesn't happen.

Explain that. Stop spouting platitudes and explain that. Set your brainwashing aside and use logic to come up with a rational explanation for that simple, inalienable fact.

[Republicanguy]

What does a nuclear weapon have to do with weapons used by people?

That is just an example to state, oh well without them there would be a conflict, and use of guns, so Americans need guns as well as their military to stop Russia or China invading.

Yet, your state hasn't had shootings, it could happen in the future. Nobody in the states that have had a shooting in those schools thought so.

[acptulsa]

What does a nuclear weapon have to do with weapons used by people?

Governments are not run by people? The tools of government are not used by people? Who does run governments? Angels?


That is just an example to state, oh well without them there would be a conflict, and use of guns, so Americans need guns as well as their military to stop Russia or China invading.

Huh? Is there a point in there somewhere? Or is it just free association?


Yet, your state hasn't had shootings, it could happen in the future. Nobody in the states that have had a shooting in those schools thought so.

Everybody in Florida thought so, because this wasn't their first mass shooting. And it isn't very damned likely to happen here, because there are way, way too many good guys with guns. The odds against a miscreant tripping on SSRIs being able to get three shots off without getting plugged themselves are so low, even the most addled by psychotropic poisons have enough sense to know they shouldn't even try.

What part of this do you not understand? Go to the dictionary and look up the word DETERRENCE. Go. Look that word up. Don't come back here and blather another word until you understand the concept of DETERRENCE. Go look it up. Really.

What do weapons in the hand of the trustworthy have to do with weapons in the hands of the evil. Was that the question you opened your post with? Go look up DETERRENCE--I've spelled it for you three times, so you won't have any trouble--and let's see if that helps you hold an intelligent conversation.

Oh, gee. I can't take these people with me. They actually have an instinct for self preservation. So much for that idea. Maybe Floridians will roll over and die for me.

[bunklocoempire]

Immediately before he became the CEO of SIBA, he was Director of Business Development in Homeland Security Programs at Raytheon. At the defense contractor, he was responsible for initiating and supporting pursuits in the homeland and public safety markets, and leading collaborative efforts across businesses to bring distinctive products and services to civilian mission sets. He also represented Raytheon as a a thought leader, writing white papers and speaking at both U.S. and international events. He also worked to evaluate third-party technologies for investment purposes.

http://www.biometricupdate.com/201611/trump-adds-biometrics-industry-veteran-to-transition-team

Got your school biometric I.D.?

[Republicanguy]

No, there is the mad obsession here that weapons are necessary, when really just aren't needed. You take your freedom to the extreme.

A nuclear weapon won't be used, simply because that would be the destruction of the economies.

If American society didn't have weapons, the shootings would not of occurred.

[Swordsmyth]

No, there is the mad obsession here that weapons are necessary, when really just aren't needed. You take your freedom to the extreme.

A nuclear weapon won't be used, simply because that would be the destruction of the economies.

If American society didn't have weapons, the shootings would not of occurred.

The murders would have taken place some other way.

[acptulsa]

No, there is the mad obsession here that weapons are necessary, when really just aren't needed. You take your freedom to the extreme.

'Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.'--Barry Goldwater


A nuclear weapon won't be used, simply because that would be the destruction of the economies.

If your government believed that, why did they develop their very own, instead of using that money to increase your dole?

Why am I asking you questions? You never answer them. We're polite enough to answer quite a few of your questions, but you don't seem to be polite enough to return the favor.


If American society didn't have weapons, the shootings would not of occurred.

No, the stabbings would not have occurred. And if we didn't have knives, stranglings would still have occurred, but we'd not be able to slice our bread.

You don't want us to have sandwiches? Damn it, we're hard working, productive people. We deserve sandwiches! Why are you trying to take our sandwiches away?

I bet you aren't giving up your own sandwiches...

[Republicanguy]

Honestly, you aren't making much sense, you try and pick holes with everything, oh the knives aren't the problem it is the person, so the gun gets to be kept in your society. People like yourself don't need a weapon or your neighbor. Only the Military, not even the police need a gun, may be an Armed response unit.

Weapons have been necessary at times during conflict, but to own as a citizen just isn't necessary. A government is suppose to defend a territory, that is the point, not the only role, but one of them. The white house was destroyed over two centuries just gone by, and no resident defended the capital from another country.

The guns are of the past, and meant something there and then, today the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the modern weapons.

[acptulsa]

The guns are of the past, and meant something there and then, today the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the modern weapons.

Have you seen what our government did to Iraq and Libya? Have you seen what they're doing to Afghanistan and Syria?

Do you know why they're not doing the same to us? Well we do know why. So bugger off already.

[Republicanguy]

Stop with paranoia. Our national and business interests are under threat, like all throughout history. One people gets to be the boss over another.

Owning a weapon in society is unnecessary. Like I stated, the 2nd Amendment didn't do anything to defend America over two centuries ago. The argument is rubbish.

[acptulsa]

That's what Stalin said.

Then he killed twenty million. Or more.

Just because I'm paranoid does not mean those people in charge aren't psychotic.


http://lovefreedomtruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Democide.jpg

https://henrithibodeau.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/disarmed-population.jpg?w=516&h=531

[Swordsmyth]

Stop with paranoia. Our national and business interests are under threat, like all throughout history. One people gets to be the boss over another.

Owning a weapon in society is unnecessary. Like I stated, the 2nd Amendment didn't do anything to defend America over two centuries ago. The argument is rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0

[Republicanguy]

Pointless view points, just to justify the ownership of weapons for people's amusement, and yee ha attitude.

[acptulsa]

Child-like faith is child-like. In the ability to eliminate what already exists--hundreds of millions of guns. In the trustworthiness of government. In the media's perception of what our biggest problems are (compare the number of innocents killed by civilians to the number of innocents killed by soldiers--or by mere cops).

And then there's your distinct lack of faith in one's fellow man. I'm here to tell you 99 44/100ths of armed Oklahomans would never harm you, and would rush into harm's way to protect you.

Our only "problem" is we have a realistic view of the odds, and we know who our friends are.

Yee ha that, arrogant child.

[Swordsmyth]

Pointless view points, just to justify the ownership of weapons for people's amusement, and yee ha attitude.

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniences, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

Cesare Beccaria (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519758-Cesare-Beccaria-Unknown-to-Us-Influential-on-Our-Founders)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0

[AZJoe]

https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28055732_2086210431612561_4372952582093558358_n.jp g?oh=2c42b565ad1b92e42eb50a27958cffde&oe=5B43C0F3

[AZJoe]

https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28168162_2088510361382568_6243092901481121898_n.jp g?oh=5414490e401f776cc681e9574dcab6ca&oe=5B472345