So, which is it to be? Barbara Boxer or Ron Paul?
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.
I think the very last lesson our children need to be taught is how to comply with yet another level of state security apparatus. When I was growing up, "lock down" wasn't even a phrase, and the country seemed pretty secure. Paul is right; it is a "shabby spectacle".
Of course, that Boxer's proposal is yet one more sign of the complete moral and intellectual collapse of the Party Formerly Known as Democratic doesn't make Paul's ideology or some of his supporters any more savory.
But give credit on pure policy grounds: Paul is right, and Boxer is wrong.
NOTE There are times when I think the exiled left adds 1 + 99 = 100, and the exiled right 99 + 1 = 100; on the question of the empire, say, where Paul gets it right, as do a myriad of figures on the exiled left. For good or ill, however.... Funny, I'm trying to write something like "For good or ill, policy proposals and ideologies, unlike addition, are not commutative." But that's sloppy writing, because it's addition that's commutative, so to make the metaphor work, I need a word for combining policy proposals of disparate provenance. And I don't have such a word. Talk about Orwellian!