Posted on Jul 23, 2015
Are you ready and willing to sacrifice some of your freedoms to have a more "secure" America?
4.26K
41
30
3
3
0
I have heard on the news and in social media how we need to protect ourselves more on the homefront. I even begrudgingly watched Tomi Lahren, a news actress on One America News, pose all sorts of questions to the President with absolutely no idea of how to answer them herself. Whereas I do agree with protecting ourselves more here at home, how do you recommend we do so? More security equals less freedom...and just like going through security at the airport...everyone is cool with it for awhile, but at some point everyone starts to complain about it. With the free country we enjoy...just how do you suppose the events that occurred in Tennessee could have been stopped? Remember...when answering...more security equals more manpower, more concrete barriers, razor wire, and ultimately more money.
Freedom
Security
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 15
10
10
0
Ben Franklin stated it best.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
The logical fallacy is the statement that it could have been stopped. No amount of red tape, regulation, or laws will prevent all bad humans from making choices. We can reduce the consequences and the frequency of the occurrences but it is impossible to stop, without a change to individual human nature.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
The logical fallacy is the statement that it could have been stopped. No amount of red tape, regulation, or laws will prevent all bad humans from making choices. We can reduce the consequences and the frequency of the occurrences but it is impossible to stop, without a change to individual human nature.
(10)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
No he did not, but he lived in a time where laws could only prevent good people from arming themselves. Particularly when a homemade bomb is made out of fireworks or fertilizer. Everyday items that are so abundant they can't be controlled by any laws.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MAJ (Join to see) - Captain; Two minor points here:
[1] Benjamin Franklin wasn't the person who "said" that; and
[2] the sentiment was expressed in a letter complaining about being taxed to pay for the British government providing troops to dispossess the Native Americans from lands which the British government had entered into a solemn treaty the Native Americans would possess in perpetuity in order that the colonial governments could sell off huge tracts to land speculators (read as "campaign contributors") who would keep the best parts for themselves and sell off the rest at highly inflated prices in order to make huge profits.
That being said, the sentiment is sound.
[1] Benjamin Franklin wasn't the person who "said" that; and
[2] the sentiment was expressed in a letter complaining about being taxed to pay for the British government providing troops to dispossess the Native Americans from lands which the British government had entered into a solemn treaty the Native Americans would possess in perpetuity in order that the colonial governments could sell off huge tracts to land speculators (read as "campaign contributors") who would keep the best parts for themselves and sell off the rest at highly inflated prices in order to make huge profits.
That being said, the sentiment is sound.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
here is a cited quote
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." This was first written by Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor (11 Nov. 1755) http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a
It was written on behalf of the Pennsylvania assembly in a power struggle with the Penn Family Estate and the Governors attempt to Veto the family's taxation.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." This was first written by Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor (11 Nov. 1755) http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a
It was written on behalf of the Pennsylvania assembly in a power struggle with the Penn Family Estate and the Governors attempt to Veto the family's taxation.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said
(0)
(0)
LTC(P) (Join to see)
Either way...the population of the United States was less than four million in Benjamin Franklin's time. The population is 100 times that today. I bet that if he were able to come back and live at this point in American history...he would choose his words differently.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
The short answer, no. The Ike quote below is the most succinct reason why my answer is no. And the follow up quotes by Garfield show us the pathway to that loss of freedom. The politicians divide us, pitting us against one another for power and with that power comes control over the freedoms we once enjoyed.
"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." - Dwight D. Eisenhower (attributed)
"And this leads me to say that now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand those high qualities to represent them in the national legislature." James Garfield, A Century of Congress, CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE, Page 68
"Congress must always be the exponent of the political character and culture of the people; and if the next centennial does not find us a great nation, with a great and worthy Congress, it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces which are employed to select the men who shall occupy the great places of trust and power." James Garfield, A Century of Congress, CONGRESS AND CULTURE, Page 69
"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." - Dwight D. Eisenhower (attributed)
"And this leads me to say that now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand those high qualities to represent them in the national legislature." James Garfield, A Century of Congress, CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE, Page 68
"Congress must always be the exponent of the political character and culture of the people; and if the next centennial does not find us a great nation, with a great and worthy Congress, it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces which are employed to select the men who shall occupy the great places of trust and power." James Garfield, A Century of Congress, CONGRESS AND CULTURE, Page 69
(5)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl (Join to see) - Corporal; It sometimes seems that the "standard" has changed from "honest, upright, educated, dedicated, concerned, conscientious, people who represent the interests of ALL the people as far as possible" to "a bunch of clowns of whom the best things that can be said are that they vote for stuff that means money in my pocket and don't actually make the people who they aren't voting to put money in the pockets of vomit when they have to say their names".
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
No computer chip is going in my body and no probes up my butt. I will never surrender my weapons but I have no problems with cameras every block since I am a law abiding citizen anyway. Body cams on cops...ok with me. Why? More evidence that the prosecuters can have, not because I think all cops are brutal thugs. I just fear that our touchy feely society will abuse these powers and use political agendas to dictate what an enhanced monitoring system could be used for. I despise gangsters, criminals, thugs, etc. If violent felons could be laser zapped in the family jewels from space I say bring it. If you want to put a buzzer for entry outside every bullet proof window of every recruiting station I say do it. These two faced jagoffs put armed guards outside courthouses, social security offices, political venues, and everyone of any import as long as they are civilians. The military is s!@# out of luck. Feel the love, my brothers.
(4)
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
SFC Mark Merino well said and profound statement. Thanks for the insight!
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google