Ron Paul: We Don’t Need FEMA, ‘That’s Why We Have the Second Amendment’

Why Did MSNBC Edit Paul’s Comment Out of the Video of the Interview It Posted This Weekend?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

After the corporate media ignored his narrow loss to Michele Bachmann in the Ames Straw Poll earlier this month, Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, the Big Government libertarian presidential candidate, and his supporters have been desperately seeking attention — primarily in the form of the same sort of claims of victimhood we hear from the likes of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Sean Hannity and other self-righteous fringe dwellers.

Since when does corporate media filter out politicians’ blithering, nonsensical statements?

In an interview with MSNBC on Friday, however, Ron Paul attempted to insert himself into upcoming coverage of Hurricane Irene over the weekend by saying provocative things about FEMA.

In the interview, Paul, 76, lambasted FEMA and yearned for the olden days when Americans and their local governments were left to fend for themselves in the wake of natural disasters:

After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

“There’s no magic about FEMA. They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states,” Paul told NBC News. “A state can decide. We don’t need somebody in Washington.”

Got that? In a Ron Paul administration, after every hurricane, earthquake, tornado and wildfire, Americans would be on their own — every major disaster would result in a post-Katrina style collapse of public order and safety.

But in the version of the interview that MSNBC released on its website this weekend — see the video above — the network edited out the remark Ron Paul had presumably intended to be their lede. The statement MSNBC omitted was this:

RON PAUL: The government’s not responsible for your safety, that’s why we have a Second Amendment.

MSNBC’s reasons for deleting this comment from the package is a puzzlement. True, Paul’s comment is a) ahistorical and b) makes no sense.

But since when does corporate media filter out politicians’ blithering, nonsensical statements?

Paul’s statement is ahistorical because the Founders were not contemplating citizens’ needs to protect themselves from looters in the wake of natural disasters or — sorry NRA — even the right to own a gun when they added the right to “bear arms” to the Bill of Rights. The phrase “bearing arms” has never been synonymous with “owning a gun.” It refers to being equipped with weapons in defense against a common foe.

In 18th century America, the vast majority of people lived on farms, and much of the land bordered a vast wilderness. Guns were required for hunting as well as for protection from wild beasts and the rampages of the original owners of all that farmland. Nobody — nobody — questioned the right of citizens to own guns. From the Founders’ perspective, devoting space in the Constitution to assert the right to own guns would have been as silly and moot as adding amendments ensuring the right to plant a garden, fish or chop wood.

The right to “bear arms” addressed the well-justified paranoia among the Founders’ generation that a European royal would somehow get himself elected president and declare the United States to be a monarchy — which they also addressed with the requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” — or that a European power would seek to overthrow the American republic and re-colonize it — which, in fact, Britain attempted to do in 1812. The Second Amendment was meant to ensure that citizens were armed against subjugation by enemies from without or within.

It’s possible Ron Paul may know the actual history of the Second Amendment, but, being first and foremost a savvy politician, what he certainly knows is that his followers are clueless about it. What he was saying to them was that Americans don’t need FEMA, because they are armed.

That is truly nonsense. Having lived through a few disasters — the Los Angeles riots in April 1992, the Landers earthquake two months later and the Northridge quake in January 1994 — there was just one time when it briefly crossed my mind that it might serve us well to have a gun in the house, and that was during the riots.

Generally, however, in the wake of disasters I experienced, the present needs are more basic: Do we have sufficient food and water? When will the power be turned back on?

The environment has suddenly become dangerous. The house is full of broken glass. Power lines are down outside. Gas lines may be breached. But emergency services are swamped. If a family member or neighbor is injured or becomes ill, calling 911 does not mean the EMTs will come soon. In a city the size of Los Angeles, it is more likely than not that they won’t show up at all.

In the real world, a gun is a useless tool in addressing 99.9 percent of the crises people might encounter in the wake of a disaster.

On a political level, what is remarkable about Ron Paul’s assertion — and the reason I think he meant it to be the lede in the story — is its similarity to the call for “Second Amendment” remedies Nevada’s 2010 whackadoodle U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle against her opponent, Sen. Harry Reid, should she fail to unseat him by democratic means on Election Day.

Despite the wall-to-wall coverage of Hurricane Irene this weekend, the edited version of Paul’s criticism of federal disaster relief has gotten a little traction. According to C-SPAN “Washington Journal,” he will appear on two of the Sunday shows this morning. Let’s hope someone asks him to explain in more detail how widespread gun ownership would help communities rebuild without federal government assistance in the wake of disasters.

(CNN picked up the MSNBC edited version of the story, without the reference to the Second Amendment.)

7 Comments

  • Pingback: Headline of the day: Ron Paul strikes yet again | eats shoots 'n leaves

  • The Skeptical cynic
    August 28, 2011 - 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for any one of poobah pundits to ask for an explanation of Ron Paul’s Brain Flatus.
    Paul said it – MSM will forget it – the NRA and gun nuts have
    already et it (and are looking for dessert)!

  • citydweller
    August 31, 2011 - 9:59 am | Permalink

    ‘ The phrase “bearing arms” has never been synonymous with “owning a gun.” ‘

    That’s correct.

    “the right of the people to KEEP and bear Arms” does.

    Forget to read the Bill Of Rights lately, or are you just editing it to support a false assertion?

  • Kewalo
    September 2, 2011 - 11:30 am | Permalink

    Jon, during Katrina I did a ton of research much of it having to do with FEMA. I ran across this CA DOT report that has a very interesting chronology of the 1994 earthquake. Just scroll down to Appendix A.

    http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13775.html

    The earthquake hit at 4:30 and FEMA was activated 15 min later.

    • September 2, 2011 - 1:22 pm | Permalink

      Thanks for the link, Kewalo. At the time of Northridge, James Lee Witt was in charge of FEMA and it worked very well. There were no complaints here then.

  • Kewalo
    September 2, 2011 - 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Jon, UVW I thought you would enjoy seeing that. Remember that the RW was saying the reason that FEMA couldn’t just jump in before the politicians declared an emergency in LA? What total BS and this link shows it was BS. FEMA was activated a full hour before the gov of CA declared the emergency.

    James Lee Witt really is a professional in disaster relief.

    Anyhow, I thought you would like seeing it and it’s great info to have tucked away…just in case.

  • Grain
    December 28, 2011 - 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Here is something interesting.
    Ron Paul could win Iowa his support is really growing.
    check out this song.? Do you think its a call to violence or a call to human rights such as second amendment. Starts with gREAT RON PAUL Speech.. The controversal line is GO BUY A SHOTGUN!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDxJPeqgF0

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>