To correct you. It is Dr. Paul and not Mr. Paul.

While a few months ago he was crazy uncle Paul and held no merit to them. Now their trying to use our Paul against us as if we are that stupid.

Well, ME WONDERS why all of the high-and-mighty politicians all send THEIR CHILDREN to schools with ARMED guards???

ME thinks that they KNOW that ARMED GUARDS is the solution to PROTECTING school children. THEY would certainly not be having ARMED guards for their children if their GOAL was some sinister "police state" against their OWN children, right? Having ARMED guards watching over their OWN children, would then be like saying that they are planning such a thing against their OWN children. NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!

Its NOT about forming a "police state" but is about suggesting the ONLY REAL SOLUTION for school children. And make NO mistake, politicians are NOT DUMMIES when it comes to themselves and their children. THEY know that ARMED GUARDS are the REAL solution and they will make DAMN SURE that they live under the FINEST security options available.

When it comes to these politicians, we can LEARN from what THEY DO, and NOT what THEY SAY!!!!

I like Dr Ron Paul but if he is against armed guards in schools, to assure our children their safety in them, then he is WRONG. VERY wrong.

Oh, and isnt this the same "SENILE OLD NUT" that they LABELED him during election time???????

It seems like a typical FOX NEWS strategy. To use someone such as Dr Paul stature to persuade mindless drones.

These are the only words you have to know from Ron Paul. Everything else is pointless and straight smear tactics.

Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets."

Only quote worth reading...

Originally posted by oper8zhin
Well, ME WONDERS why all of the high-and-mighty politicians all send THEIR CHILDREN to schools with ARMED guards???

ME thinks that they KNOW that ARMED GUARDS is the solution to PROTECTING school children. THEY would certainly not be having ARMED guards for their children if their GOAL was some sinister "police state" against their OWN children, right? Having ARMED guards watching over their OWN children, would then be like saying that they are planning such a thing against their OWN children. NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!

Its NOT about forming a "police state" but is about suggesting the ONLY REAL SOLUTION for school children. And make NO mistake, politicians are NOT DUMMIES when it comes to themselves and their children. THEY know that ARMED GUARDS are the REAL solution and they will make DAMN SURE that they live under the FINEST security options available.

When it comes to these politicians, we can LEARN from what THEY DO, and NOT what THEY SAY!!!!

I like Dr Ron Paul but if he is against armed guards in schools, to assure our children their safety in them, then he is WRONG. VERY wrong.

Oh, and isnt this the same "SENILE OLD NUT" that they LABELED him during election time???????

edit on 25-12-2012 by oper8zhin because: (no reason given)

are you daft?
politicians children should be more well guarded because they are a much more likely target
i dont see anyone trying to murder your children because of policies you have instituted or take them hostage to influence legislation etc etc.
its absurd that you think your children are at the same amount of risk as those of well known and controversial public figures
the only people you have to worry about going after your kids are random nut jobs and what are the chances of that? so astronomically low its silly
youre just being reactive because there was a recent school shooting.... youre no better than those calling for a gun ban

I agree with Dr.Paul!
Again.
We do not need more cops, we need more armed citizens.
An armed society is a polite society.

If I'm reading Dr. Paul correctly...
He seems to be railing against FEDERAL involvement in the solution.
As I read the article, Dr. Paul refers to the TSA and he is correct -
We certainly don't need any more extensive TSA gropers or other Federal involvement in protecting our children at the local (school district) level.

ganjoa

I wish George Orwell hadn't written anything. All anyone has to do is shout out "Big Brother" and people stop listening.

I went to a sort of "ghetto" high school. We had security cameras, security staff, and an armed(presumably) police man of some sort.

I never really saw the police man and the security guards didn't do anything to me; the cameras went unnoticed as well.

I'm not sure if those things made us any safer or not, but I can say that they never hurt me in any way. There were absolutely no negatives to having cameras, guards, or a gun in school that I can see.

I don't know how Paul plans on "rebuilding society". How do you force people to be better behaved?

Originally posted by g146541
I agree with Dr.Paul!
Again.
We do not need more cops, we need more armed citizens.
An armed society is a polite society.

That sounds pretty ridiculous. I wouldn't want to live somewhere where everyone who might be having a bad day, or gets in a fender bender with me, or gets in a drunken argument in a bar, or whatever is holding onto a gun as well.

Heck, imagine if there was a shooting in a dark movie theater. Someone pulls out their gun and looks for the shooter. Someone two rows down does the same and sees our would be hero holding onto their gun and thinks they are the shooter and opens fire. Repeat the same scenario for everyone in the theater.

Might as well just get rid of the police if everyone is armed and they are so ineffectual. We can go back to forming a posse to get criminals and having lawless mob rule. You might have to. I don't think that anyone would want to be a cop in a world where everyone did, in fact, have a gun.