US 2nd Amendment Under Assault, Freedom Firearms Guns Defense

[grarpamp]

Ron Paul Wrecks 'Red Flag' Gun Laws

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/may/15/gun-control-debate-ignores-the-real-problems/

Gun control advocates continue to claim that only restrictions on gun
ownership will keep people safe from mass shooters and other
criminals. However, good people with guns can stop bad people with
guns. And bad people will still have guns despite gun control laws.
Further weakening the argument that restricting private firearms
ownership will reduce violent crimes is the fact that states with
“constitutional carry” — where individuals are free to exercise their
Second Amendment rights without seeking permission from the government
— have lower homicide rates than states with more restrictive gun
laws.

One policy that is popular among gun control supporters and some who
normally support the Second Amendment but want to “do something” about
gun violence is red flag laws. These laws allow law enforcement to
confiscate an individual’s guns based on a report that the individual
poses a threat to public safety. Red flag laws allow governments to
restrict the exercise of a constitutionally protected right without
due process.

Another weakness in the argument that more restrictive gun laws will
reduce violence is that many of the cities and states with the highest
incidence of violent crime have restrictive gun laws. Gun control
supporters try to explain this by blaming individuals who bring guns
from states with more permissive gun laws into states with more
restrictive gun laws. The guns can, though, at the same time be coming
from states with less violent crime into states with more violent
crime. But, if guns were the problem, then violent crime would be
higher in states with permissive gun laws than in states with more
legal restrictions related to firearms.

The gun control debate ignores the root causes of rising violence,
which is a symptom of the decline of traditional morality that
respected every individual’s inalienable right to life, liberty, and
property. This traditional morality has been replaced with a
nihilistic philosophy that denies moral law and natural rights.
Instead, it justifies doing whatever one feels is necessary to achieve
one’s goals.

This disregard for a higher moral law finds expression in a foreign
policy that then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously
supported while defending US sanctions that starved Iraqi children.
The US is viewed as the world’s “indispensable nation,” and whatever
it does is automatically considered right, regardless of the human
suffering caused by the US government’s overseas interventions.

We also see this expression of disregard for a higher moral law in
support for abortion that is based on the idea that preborn do not
have the right to life. Whether the baby lives or dies is called a
matter of “choice.”

Should we be surprised a society produces mass shooters and other
psychopaths when government, schools, media, entertainment, and even
some churches promote nihilism that devalues human life?

While government can undermine morality, it cannot promote virtue. Any
attempt to use government power to “make people good” will inevitably
result in tyranny. It will also lead to a less virtuous population.
Instead, those seeking to replace the nihilism with a philosophy that
recognizes that all humans are born with inalienable rights should
work to restore limited constitutional government that does not
attempt to provide for the people’s material or spiritual needs.