2006-11-29 13:26:51 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well not everyone agrees with that philosphy and I could not agree more... the means does not justify the end.
2006-11-29 14:08:09 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Anyone willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither. Americans have been giving their lives for freedom since this country was begun. People died trying to get to america for the promise of freedom. Freedom, not security, is most precious. It was purchased with the blood of countless Americans. Anyone willing to give up that freedom for security is a coward.
2006-11-29 13:33:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ben Franklin put it very well when he said if you give up liberty tempoarly for security, soon you will have neither. I agree with Ben Franklin, and frimly disagree with Mr. Chainsawisback, we can not afford to trust Mr. Bush on the matter of liberty, or security for that matter, we were attacked by the people from Saudi Arabia on 9/11 according to the US government. There were no wmds found in Iraq, Bin Ladden escaped , and we call Saudi arabai our friend. So in my humbel opinion as a combat veteran from Viet Nam, and as the father of two Iraqi war vets, and father in law of 2 Iraqi war vets., the reduction of any liberities for US citizens will damage our country perminately, and continued mismanagement of the "war on terro" could be our down fall.
2006-11-29 13:50:43 · answer #3 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Benjamin Franklin said:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
If Ben Franklin said we shouldn't, I'm gonna listen to him. He is right, though. This country fought for our freedoms, throwing safety into the wind (all the founders would have been hung had they failed), in order to obtain freedom from an oppressive leader.
2006-11-29 13:30:34 · answer #4 · answered by amg503 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because ultimately, I want to live. If I need to give up a few freedoms for that, so be it. I'm sure I'll complain at that moment but be very thankful in the future after I've lived a long life without the fear of being killed by foreign extremists.
2006-11-29 13:31:15 · answer #5 · answered by jaded1004 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Just what freedoms are you missing? Where did you last see them? Maybe we can get together a search party & find them.
I haven't lost any freedoms. I don't know anyone who has. I'm as free as I ever was, & more secure thanks to President Bush.
2006-11-29 13:44:43 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Those that would trade freedom for security deserve neither.
2006-11-29 13:30:07 · answer #7 · answered by jack w 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because fear sells better then sex
We lost less than 3000 people on 9/11 but we loose 30,000 a year due to gun violence. If we get rid of the second amendment, we can save tens of thousands of people a year. Why is the second more important than the fourth? I am willing to sacrifice 20% of the bill of rights if it will save 33,000 people. Down with 2 and 4
Take stats class- numbers are our friends.
It is irrational for people to defend only part of the Bill of Rights; all 10 are essential for our country to survive. People in the US have better odds of being killed by a firearm or winning the lottery than being killed by an act of terror. If you are willing to relinquish your rights due to terrorism, you must be one of those who eagerly pay a tax on the mathematically inept twice a week when the ping-pong balls take center stage.
2006-11-29 13:30:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Last i checked i still have freedoms and its still a free country.
2006-11-29 13:28:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
So the country's leaders might have the freedom to do whatever they want.
2006-11-29 13:28:59 · answer #10 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋