Are you ready and willing to sacrifice some of your freedoms to have a more "secure" America?

LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:01:52 -0400

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.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 23 at 2015 1:20 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:20:03 -0400

We must, to some extent.

We need far more cyber security and tracking of terrorists and their operations wherever possible.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 2:53 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:53:28 -0400

That is a frightening question because to what extent and what freedoms are we talking about? and would these new efforts mean the inability to move about? And what about the fact that we cannot even call out the people who are making this life harder?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 10:45 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:45:03 -0400

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

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 11:33 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:33:05 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 23 at 2015 12:43 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:43:47 -0400

To function as a society, some limiting of freedoms is necessary. The hard part is figuring out where the line between necessary and controlling is.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 23 at 2015 12:48 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:48:55 -0400

If we secure our borders and limit access to our country from peoe who want to harm us I.e. Muslim extremists we would have less need to give up our rights.

Response by SGT Scott Curtice made Jul 23 at 2015 1:27 PM

SGT Scott Curtice — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:27:45 -0400

somewhat but no, I don't care about something like London, having camera's everywhere, like the idea of back ground checks for gun purchases everywhere, don't mind data mining the internet or blind cell phone discussions word searches, even fine with fisa warrants, and that's probably a lot, but it comes down to accountability of those that govern all of that. I mean NSA idiots tracking their girlfriends, or hot women on general, those asses needed it handed to them. So in the end, I don't believe we'd ever see the accountability, seems to be a weak point of our country and society, so that is what makes me so no to it all

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Jul 23 at 2015 10:02 PM

SrA Jonathan Carbonaro — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:02:14 -0400

NO!!!!!!!! I've seen enough freedoms given up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk

If the sheep want to give up their freedoms so be it. They will be like lambs to slaughter. I personally will not stand to give up one more of my freedoms. I think we need to fight to get the freedoms that have been stolen from us.

U.S. Armed Forces - We Must Fight - President Reagan (HD) 2015

Video by Matthew Worth (Canadianmatt3) Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/canadianmatt3 US Armed Forces "A Time For Choosing" Speech By 40th President o...

Response by Maj William Gambrell made Jul 23 at 2015 10:16 PM

Maj William Gambrell — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:16:33 -0400

It depends on how you look at it. We have wasted money trying to control the Middle East and it will never work. What I don't understand is why congress won't adjust Title 10 authority to allow active duty (non reserve or guard) to protect our borders from inside our borders without instituting Marshall Law. We pay a lot for active military to protect this country, but they can't while serving inside the US.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 23 at 2015 10:31 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:31:10 -0400

Ah, time for me to repeat message number eight. You may have seen it in other discussion threads. The arrival of the terrorists in the United States is proof positive of the failure of the military to keep them away. Of course, I'm not blaming this on the military. The failure lies in the lap of the Commander-in-Chief who has led the defense so poorly. Now that they're here, it's up to We the People to protect ourselves. It's the same really as when the criminal enters your home. Law enforcement failed to protect you and it's time to protect yourself. It's time for civilians to organize in their communities for defense and to respond to disasters, natural as well as man made. I would hate to see people again sitting on the roofs of homes waiting for help that is slow in coming. We need to equip, train, and organize our neighbors to help themselves and each other. Veterans should be a wonderful resource for this effort. If anything, we need more freedom to accomplish this, not less. Our fearless leaders in the District of Calamity want to disarm us. How foolish is that? They fear us if we organize. What are they afraid of?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 1:45 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:45:01 -0400

And he disappears. must have been a troll.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jul 24 at 2015 3:14 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 03:14:34 -0400

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.

Response by MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht made Jul 25 at 2015 9:03 PM

MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 21:03:15 -0400

It might help if we let the authorities do their job with out all the liberal interference.

Response by CDR James Christopher made Aug 7 at 2015 12:46 PM

CDR James Christopher — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 12:46:00 -0400

All of this depends entirely on what it is that you want. The only way to me completely secure is to implement a police state, and even that is not completely secure. Inmates are supposed to be secure while incarcerated, yet violence does occur. Warrantless searches, police checkpoints, travel restrictions between states, firearm confiscations, etc could make us more secure and reduce risk.
I, for one, would rather have an element of risk and retain our liberties, than abrogate our Constitution in the name of National Security.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 9:57 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:57:20 -0400

Sacrificing freedom is counter productive.