Ted Nugent on VA Tech and School shootings

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul - how many other of the candidates on either side would say this?

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.

XRpredator said:

Great Jack Lord's hair, Vic, I'd guess that too, but I'd like to hear an opinion from him once in a while

Click to expand...

Good Lord, there's a change. Some here used to ask me to shut up. ;)

My opinion on the issue should be pretty obvious to those who have been around for awhile. I'm a libertarian and a strict constructionist of the constitution. Thus, when it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." . . .

The word "infringe", means "to encroach or trespass".

Therefore, the government should not trespass on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Period. Any law which regulates that right is unconstitutional - until such time as the constitution is properly amended.

Political positions are actually very simple when one applies what was clearly written without adding to or taking away.

Note that the constitution/bill of rights defaults towards the rights of the people, not the rights of the government.

Thus, when the 4th Amendment says,

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That should be liberally interpreted in favor of the rights of the people. Therefore, many of the recent provisions like the patriot act are unconstitutional. e.g. warrantless wiretaps, etc. . .

Again, if people/politicians think the Patriot Act provisions are necessary, then they can try to amend the constitution and change the rights enumerated in the 4th Amendment. Until then. . .

The 10th Amendment should be REALLY obvious as well, but it apparently no long exists in practice. The 10th reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

How many things does Fed Gov do that are not specifically delegated to it in the constitution?

One glaring example would be an established and standing army. The constitution is very clear:

"The Congress shall have power to . . . To declare war . . . To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy;

The Founders evidently intended to have a "standing" navy to protect our borders from the water, but to make it more difficult to have a standing army (from their writings, this was because the founders feared standing armies - in part because the founders were non-interventionists).

This does NOT mean we don't need a standing army TODAY. What it means is that the constitution specifically addressed the issue, the constitution is (allegedly) the supreme law of the land, and the constitution has not been amended to allow for funding of the current standing army that we have. Thus, the army is unconstitutional.

People and politicians used to take the constitution seriously (and literally). Remember prohibition of alcohol (arguably a "drug")?

The constitution was amended to prohibit alcohol (amendment 18). When prohibition proved to be a terrible failure, the constitution was re-amended to repeal prohibition (Amendment 21).

This proves 3 things.

1: If the people and politicians really want somethingto be changed, they can actually follow the proper procedures and amend the constitution.

2: If the amendment proves to be worse than the prior version of the constitution, then the amendment can be repealed upon further review.

3: ALL current federal laws regulating drugs are unconstitutional. If the constitution had to be amended to prohibit the sale of alcohol (because the constitution did not allow the fed gov to prohibit alcohol otherwise), then show me the provision of the constitution that addresses drugs? Note that various drugs existed up to the time of the 18th amendment and that kids could go down to the drug store and buy the same ones that people do 10-20 years in prison for buying today.

This does not mean that drugs should or should not be regulated. That's up for debate. It means that the current laws are not permissible under the constitution.

One last thing - abortion. Rep Ron Paul has delivered 4000 babies, is a Christian and is pro life. However, his position on abortion is that the constitution does not allow the fed gov to regulate it - thus the issue should be left in the hands of the states. I agree. It's much easier to affect the opinion/position of legislators at the state level than at the federal level.

There's my opinion, Pred. Probably more than you wanted, but it should clarify my opinion on just about any political issue.