NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre Ron Paul

Believe me, I am among the strongest of the Second Amendment supporters but when I watched Wayne LaPierre's statement shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, I knew that he was over-stepping the boundaries from Second Amendment rights into the realm of furthering the police state.  From the outside it looked like a strong statement against the socialist tyrants wanting to take away any and all firearms and many cheered his statements.  Coupled with the strong emotions being played upon concerning the safety of our children it was difficult to see the big picture for a while.  However, I have made my decision as to what should and should not be--and they're right in line with what Ron Paul said here:

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place.  Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control.  This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake 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.  

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.  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.  We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.

Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality.  The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home.  U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?  We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders.  This is the world of government provided "security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.  School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

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? 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.  We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

You see, either we support liberty and freedom or we support tyranny.  PERIOD.  One cannot and should not be punished until a crime is committed and trying to preempt behavior and actions based upon suspicion of what one might do only enslaves the population.  When we beg the local, state and federal governments to make us safer, we are surrendering certain rights that should be retained unto ourselves...rights which once lost will likely never be regained peacefully.  Look at what we've already lost.  Have you really contemplated what it will take to regain what has been lost?  Have you thought about what it will take to put make our governments realize that they are in place to serve us and protect our God-given and Constitutional rights?  Have you contemplated what it will take to make them fear the people rather than the people fear them?  It's not a thought that warms one's heart, but it is necessary to contemplate and prepare for.  They have risen above us in power and might and it has wholly corrupted the overwhelming majority of those in office and it is only getting worse with every passing day.
 
It is for this and other reasons that I have chosen to support other gun-rights organizations rather than the NRA.  The NRA is not what it used to be and just because it is the largest organization does not make it the one to support; it is only the largest because many people choose to support them over others that are more in line with what we believe in and what we need.  We could easily make Gun Owners of America or any other the largest organization if we would only throw our support behind them...and we would have more of what we need to PROPERLY preserve the Second Amendment as a result.  Think about it.
 
What do we do about the schools?  There are options available and it's high time parents strongly consider pulling their kids out of public schools if they are concerned for their safety.  My daughters are home schooled and there are countless benefits to that option, though not everyone has the ability to do it.  Private schools are expensive, but much more controlled and beneficial than the tax-funded, government-provided schools...especially since said taxation does not cease if one decides to home school or enroll into private schools.  It is a flawed system to say the least, but let's not make it worse and complicate it by begging the "authorities" to strenghten security by enhancing the ever-growing police state we find ourselves in.  Rather, we need to fix what is already lost and broken in the right and proper ways.  When one understands the spirit of the Constitution and its Founders then and only then can we hope to actually fix what is wrong. 
 
It can and must be done without surrendering any more of our rights and freedoms.