Deserves neither", how are you to have liberty with out security?
How can you have one without the other?
2007-03-26 10:25:00 · 14 answers · asked by The Cult of Personality 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Millie C...
Yes, but how will you keep your liberties without security?
2007-03-26 10:31:25 · update #1
Timothy M...
Sure...why not. As long as I don't go out and shoot somebody for the sake of shooting them, I'll be perfectly fine with a microchip in my firearm.
2007-03-26 10:34:46 · update #2
The world has change since that was said and since the founding fathers were penning the constitution.
They never could envision Drugs, Child porn, Internet, Terrorists wack-o's.
So, I think we need to let our Government keep this great land and its people safe... at all cost.
2007-03-26 10:31:25 · answer #1 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
What about putting microchips in all firearms for security against the terrorists in this "post 9-11 world"? Give up a little of your liberty for security?
A tracking microchip? Accessible to law enforcement at local state and federal authorities at all times and tied into your REAL ID national ID card. Excellent. President Bush is glad to hear that. Fellow Republicans will not.
2007-03-26 10:29:43 · answer #2 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually the quote is:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
The difference is Essential and Temporary. There are ways of making us safer without the "Patriot" Act(I love the title) like securing our ports and checking all incoming cargo. That has not been done yet, immediately after 9/11. Ashcroft raided California's legal medicinal marijuana outlet and challenged Oregon's right to die law, threatening Drs with jail!
2007-03-26 10:38:49 · answer #3 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You CAN'T have one without the other--that's the point Ben Franklin was trying to make.
Look at what the founding fathers had to deal with. Under a despot they lost their liberty--and in return got the "security" of troops quartered in their homes, jail without trial, arbitrary judments instead of fair trials, etc. etc.
The person who wants to take your liberty wants the power to dispose of your property, your rights--and your life. That is NOT security. At best, it is merely choosing who will hold the knife to your throat. There is not security without liberty and the protection of your rights under law.
2007-03-26 10:34:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole quotation is "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin
An ESSENTIAL liberty for TEMPORARY security,that's something totally different than what you are saying.
You have to find a balance
2007-03-26 10:34:32 · answer #5 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
searching after roads, bridges, colleges etc could been executed with each and each States Taxes. What take position to the money that those States accrued? Who is conscious. so that is why we are procuring different States. Why could all of us opt for the authorities telling them how and the position their funds could go? President Obama should be encouraging those who can artwork to get to artwork or college and be effectual electorate and help run this u . s . by technique of paying taxes. quite President Obama is encouraging human beings to no longer artwork, anticipate a Gov Handout and matter upon Gov. that is incorrect extraordinarily in u . s . the position you may do some thing. So with Socialism comes barriers on individuals, a lack of motivation, a dependency on Gov quite of your self etc....
2016-12-02 20:49:10 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was Benjamin Franklin who said that. The point being that the more you have security, the less freedoms you have. For example, look at the patriot act. Once the government starts taking away your rights in the name of security, you soon find yourself without freedom and liberty. Our government needs to find another method of making us secure without it taking away our rights. This is what our forefathers worked so hard to accomplish.
As I stated before, our government needs to find another way to make us secure. Their definition of security is unconstitutional. There needs to be a balance between the two. It FIRST has to be constitutional.
2007-03-26 10:30:00 · answer #7 · answered by Groovy 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
That was a nice try, but upon viewing the actual quote (thank you, Justgoodfolk), your argument falls kind of flat.
Some Americans just aren't willing to let go of their essential freedoms and liberties for the illusion of security. No matter which way you try to frame the argument, those who are willing to turn a blind eye to infringement on constitutional liberties, are just admitting their fear and ignorance are more powerful than their respect for the constitution.
And, by the way, Isn't it unpatriotic to misquote a founding father?
2007-03-26 10:41:21 · answer #8 · answered by Babu Chicorico 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In America, we PAY for our security. It doesn't come freely. The cost is taxes...but of late, that cost has become liberties. I say we protest the fact that our government is trying to take away one to ensure the other...that wasn't in the original plan...nor should it be.
2007-03-26 10:39:40 · answer #9 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good point. The whiners don't want to give up anything for security. I
t is just more Bush bashing. For Libs, Nothing Bush does will ever come off as anything more than Bush being Imperialistic and oppressive.
2007-03-26 10:32:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋