Liberty v. Security

by Jack Lee

Is it ever justifiable to undermine one of our civil liberties in the name of security?     The fact that some people would even think that it’s okay is disturbing.   Why so?   Because all rights are inextricably linked and you can’t compromise or undermine one without compromising the others.  

If you follow the legislation coming out of Sacramento in the last few years then you are aware of a concerted effort by a small block of determined liberals, known as the gun-grabbers.  They try to pass every sort of wacky, good for nothing, restrictive gun legislation their imaginations will allow.   At the same time they are trying to justify this dangerous radicalism under the pretext of your personal security.  

“If it only saves one life”  is their new mantra.   Can you imagine what kind of country we would have today if that was the litmus test used by our founders?  What rights might we enjoy without risk?   That leftist rhetoric is meant to justify taking away some freedom and this is the first thing to happen in the wake of any tragic event involving a firearm.   Liberals know this is a great time to sidestep logic and exploit our emotions.   Most recently we saw this baloney come from Barack Obama and Joe Biden over the crazy guy at Sand Hook.  Biden said,  “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.  But, I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”  In other words, [responsible] would be a nation-wide gun ban on anything our dear federal authorities deemed appropriate, starting with those so-called [Assault Weapons].   Hey, we tried it already Joe! 

The “saving a life” canard is just blatant hypocrisy designed to play on our emotions.   Emotions manipulate voters in ways that logic and facts can’t.    It’s disturbing that this false argument has been so effective on so many!   Good luck America…we’re going to need it! 



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Liberty v. Security

  1. RHT447 says:

    When a crime is in progress, who’s there? You are your own first responder.

  2. Peggy says:

    This administration and the progressive Democrats are just plain nuts, besides being the biggest hypocrites of our time. Take their mantra for the Sandy Hook gun control, “If it only saves one life” and apply it to the abortion debate where millions of children have been killed by abortion shows their hypocrisy. If it was really about saving children they’d be just as concerned and outraged about the aborted child’s life.

    If children are not at schools because of a crazy person with a gun or a certified doctor with a surgical tool they’re both equally responsible for them not being there. One can not be condoned while the other is condemned.

    The gun control issue isn’t about saving lives, it’s about preventing us from defending ourselves from a tyrannical government.

    • Post Scripts says:

      If there is one thing that disturbs me the most about the far left and their gun control, it’s their hypocrisy. Peggy you make good points here too! How can a person who has risen to the highest office in the US not understand the sheer stupidity of saying…”if it only saves one life” so we’re going to wipe out the 2nd amendment and we’re going to pursue abortions without restrictions?

      I think the people at the top really do get it, but they don’t care because they’re counting on the voters not to! They think we’re that stupid. We’ve seen that mantra picked up by gun grabbers in Sacramento and trotted out for press releases like they were really saying something clever and caring…it’s for the children, if it only saves one child, etc.

      The scary part is the voters really don’t seem to be getting it; they’re playing along with these schmucks and they keep re-electing them!!!!

  3. Tina says:

    As is the undertaker 🙁

  4. J. Soden says:

    Ultimately, each individual is responsible for their own security. The Boy Scout motto says it best.

    And removing our freedoms in the name of “security” is an excuse for extending goofernment control of our lives. Phooey!

  5. Chris says:

    Peggy, unless you believe every doctor who has ever performed an abortion, as well as every woman who has ever procured one, should face the same legal punishment as, say, James Holmes, you cannot honestly claim that the life of an aborted fetus is morally equivalent to the life of a born child.

    99% of abortions occur before a fetus has any brain function or cerebral cortex whatsoever. How we define personhood and murder in this country has to be based on brain function; otherwise, it is murder to pull the plug on a brain-dead person.

  6. Peggy says:

    I do believe that everyone who has performed an abortion and every woman who has chosen to abort her child has killed that child. The only exception I make is if the unborn child puts the mother’s life at risk. The mother then has the right to choose what to do under the advise of her doctor. Believe me there are woman who will choose her child. I was one of them.

    As I’ve said before if it is illegal to harm the egg of a turtle or eagle, punishable by a large fine and prison time, an unborn child should be provided the SAME protection. There’s PETA that protest the harming of any living creature, except humans. There’s vegans and vegetarians who won’t eat the meat of a animal that has been killed including eggs. Why aren’t they protesting the killing of a child?

    My obvious point Chris is why isn’t the life of a unborn human child equal to the same protection as an unborn animal? When did the lives of animals become more worthy in this crazy upside down world?

    I don’t care that 99% of abortions occur before the brain has developed, because I do believe life begins at conception since human fetuses become human babies and not turtles, if given the chance to develop.

  7. Tina says:

    Peggy, take a look at the information I found regarding conception in the Lady Gaga article. Birth control pills can be sold as prevention but other forms of what is considered “prevention” actually destroys a fertilized egg, after conception has occurred. Once again the forces of power use the language to deceive.

    I’m with you. A society that has fits over endangered turtle eggs and yet will not accept the fertilized human egg as viable and treat it with the same respect is a society that has lost its moral compass. The miracle of bringing human life into the world is being lost on crass, self centered generations of people.

    And I’m not sure that 99% figure is accurate either. We seem to be hearing a lot about later term abortions these days. When you consider that our parents are the most important people in our lives, the people who are most likely to love us and care for us unconditionally, its a very sad message that we send when terminating a life is accepted as a natural and normal part of living.

    a pregnant woman doesn’t wait a number of weeks before referring to the new life within her as “my baby” or “the baby”. It’s understood that a very distinctive, one-of-a-kind, new life is growing and being protected and nurtured within her body. The idea that it would not be considered a living being would be abhorrent and ridiculous to most mothers.

    A person, a human being, is more than brain function but even if that is our measure how do we resolve the issue of sufficient development? One would have to believe that on day x abortion is acceptable but on day x+1 it is not because there is suddenly sufficient change to claim person-hood has been achieved. Bizarre…and only possible if a person is willing to suspend what she knows to be true. At three weeks the brain has already begun to develop and will continue growing gradually until well after birth.

    Can we define people only in terms of brain activity? Would we want to? We aren’t talking robots here, I don’t care how imposing a presence Gort was in “When the Earth Stood Still”. Awareness, consciousness, personality…do they all develop slowly as well? What of the soul? There is so much about the mystery of life we do not know.

    Back to the subject at hand…just as women have the responsibility to nurture and protect human life within, men (and women) have the responsibility to nurture and protect their families. Government cannot do that…and if truth be told, it is distant and cold and does not care.

  8. Peggy says:

    Tina, you’re right. There is a difference between birth control pills that prevent an egg from being released in to the fallopian tube to be fertilized from a pill that destroys an already fertilized egg. The same would also apply to an IUD that prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall. IUDs would act much like a constant D&C.

    What’s sad about that 99% statement about the brain function is his belief that since so many think it’s acceptable then it must be ok. Let’s apply that same reasoning to the Hawaiian culture that years ago believed it was acceptable to sacrifice virgins to appease their gods. Since the vast majority believed it acceptable did the rest of the world also have to accept it? Of course not. How about Hitler’s holocaust of the Jews? The majority thought it acceptable. Also, the brain is in development from the very beginning when the egg was fertilized as are the cells that determine what will be formed into arms, heart, etc.

    The concept of taking a life whether it’s to rid oneself of an unwanted burden, to appease a god, to wipe out a whole race as Hitler attempted to do, or at the hand of a crazed individual with a gun is unacceptable and to try and justify the validity of it with a 99% think it’s ok ridicules.

    The change Tina must come from each of us individually from knowing what is right and the type of moral society the world we live in will be. Will it be one where every living creature is valued or one that let’s our government determine who will live and who will die? Morality can not be legislated unless we allow it be. Moral people need to wake up and decide.

    To get back to Jack’s original topic of “Liberty vs. Security.” I believe our liberty is up most as defined in our Constitution and our personal security is accomplished by the enforcement of the laws designed to protect us. Our security is jeopardized when the laws are not enforced and laws are written for political reasons instead of for social good.

    I would like a 10 year mandatory prison sentence if a gun is used during a crime when the criminal is found guilty. And I mean 10 years in a federal prison not some county jail. I am also for more education and training for gun ownership. I honestly don’t think the mother of Adam Lanza would have had those guns in her home or taken her son target shooting if she had realized the dangerous situation she had created. But, I’m also against taking away the guns of someone who took anti-anxiety pills once 10 years ago like the news story that came out recently.

    A balance has to be found that guarantees our liberties and also protects us from those who willfully harm us.

    Have to go. Good discussion.

  9. Harold Ey says:

    Here is a problem you sometimes have with an open forum and liberal mindsets. We start with one post about what the real intent of all California’s recent rash and ill conceived new anti gun bills. Liberal legislators who ignore the obvious precautionary reasons of being able to protect ourselves in violent situations, even to the point where we have to become the aggressors while waiting for the police.

    However then suddenly it’s a discussion about the value of unborn fetus verse living children. The discussion was diverted from the original subject because of a fraction of one sentence used out of framework.

    It starts with Jacks comment about the “saving of one life canard is just blatant hypocrisy” (I agree) and Peggy, compares that same hypocrisy to liberals lack of concern over caring about aborted fetus’s and just saving one life. What happens next is Chris switches to an entirely different discussion, most likely to divert away from Jacks point.

    Well, like Peggy, I suggest we get back to the message Jack was trying to make, as painful as it may be for any activist liberal who is in support of Anti-gun legislators. Yes those gun grabbers are using a tragedy to promote their goals of making legal gun ownership difficult, if not impossible. A gun and proper training of its use, if for no other reason is no more than a tool to have in case of immediate protection from criminal intentions.. But California legislators are making ownership of guns so difficult that people will stop trying to buy them… I also believe some have stopped out of concern that this current overreaching Government will misuse their personal information. You know, like the resent revelations about the NSA and IRS.
    By the way RHT447, excellent link! Brings home the benefits and some critical needs of owning a gun!

  10. Peggy says:

    Thank you Harold, I agree.

    Jack I’m sorry for contributing to taking your subject off topic. My mama grizzly comes out when it comes to saving the lives of children, even if it is just one at a time.

    Back to guns. Where are we with ammo? I know someone who has a couple of guns, and after Obama started talking about gun control they went out and bought some ammo, but wasn’t able to find any for one gun. Without the bullets the guns will be useless. They don’t want to go target practice if they can’t replace when it may be needed for protection.

    What’s the state doing in regards to ammo limitations, fees and registration? Sorry, haven’t been keeping up with what our state officials have been doing.

  11. RHT447 says:

    “What’s the state doing in regards to ammo limitations, fees and registration? Sorry, haven’t been keeping up with what our state officials have been doing.”

    Here are a couple of handy links…

  12. Peggy says:

    Look what Alaska just did.

    Alaska Just Nullified Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws:

    The 49th state to join the Union has become the second to successfully traverse the perilous waters of nullification. In a sweeping reform, the state of Alaska has deemed that rights of the citizenry guaranteed under the state and national constitutions will no longer be ignored or side-stepped by an over-zealous federal government.

    Utilizing the Tenth Amendment — which protects the rights of states to do whatever the federal government can’t do — Alaska has completely cut funding to a number of unconstitutional and illegal federal programs, including programs that violate the Second Amendment. This means enforcing those laws in Alaska is now essentially impossible.

    The law was passed by Alaskan Governor Sean Parnell and is arguably the most sweeping reform issued by the state to date.

    From our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center:

    The federal government depends on state resources to enforce its laws. By pulling the rug out from under the feds, and denying state and local assistance to federal agents, Alaska effectively nullified indefinite detention, along with unconstitutional federal firearms regulations.

    Full article:

    • Post Scripts says:

      We should write a letter of thanks to Alaska for setting a better example of what it means to be a free state than CA ever could!

Comments are closed.