Do you value freedom or safety?

Since I am smart enough to know whats safe and whats not safe, I choose freedom. I rather decide for myself what threshold of safty I should live at.

Freedom...I think I can handle it..

Freedom! I don't need to be protected from my own self. Neither do any other grown adults (except mentally disabled people.) Intelligent, competent adults should have the freedom to make their own decisions and mistakes. Protection from predators/criminals is enough. We don't need to be treated like kids.

He who trades freedom for safety will wind up with neither.

I choose freedom. As long as I can keep my guns.

Freedom first! I'll protect myself, thank you very much. Safety doesn't mean much without freedom.

Freedom.

Freedom is an illusion that governments afford its citizens, in my honest opinion.

Sadly, I choose safety.

And I regret that. Freedom is more important. But true freedom is the freedom to live safely.

I think those who portray freedom and safety as antagonistic are either terribly misinformed or they're trying to sell you tyranny. Safety, that is real, long-term safety, comes from freedom. If you don't have freedom, you most certainly do not have safety except, perhaps, for the safety of the grave.

Freedom

FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOMMM!!! I'll take my safety in my own hands.

I kick like a donkey

Freedom.

Freedom. I, at firs,t was swayed by the SC to think that with freedom one would lose safety. I thought about that, and decided that if I was free, I would be free from any threats also.
And then I saw the explanation,
Again, if I was free to do as I wish, I would have only myself to fear.

Freedom.

I choose freedom more.

Thats a tough one...because if I have freedom then I'm more likely to lack in safety..and if I have safety then I would want to have freedom...I'm going to choose...I value neither one of them equally.

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." Janis Joplin

> Freedom is an illusion that governments afford its citizens, in my
> honest opinion.

I 100% AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS..THERE IS VERY LITTLE FREEDOM

I want to be safe and protected from any harm, and these days anything can happen' we just never know? And look at the terrorist who are trying to harm innocent people who have done nothing! to anybody at all

I don't see this as a dichotomy. Taking away my freedom in no way increases my feeling of security. Quite the contrary.

In logic, this is known as a False Dilemma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I think the idea is that some people think if we all give up some freedom, then the dishonest people will have a harder time victimizing people.
I could have all the freedom in the world to do whatever I want, and I still wouldn't do things that would jeopardize my own safety.
Some people think other (wicked) people might take advantage of extra "freedoms" (less security.) I'm not aware of any concrete examples where this would happen though. Maybe in matters of privacy?

Like I said, I really don't see a dichotomy. Dishonest people by definition don't play by the rules. Honest people can be victimised by agents of their own government when basic safeguards are removed. I would think that if anything, reduced freedom = reduced security.

I know they don't, but under tightened security, it's supposed to be easier to recognise someone breaking the rules. People stand out more. If you can't wear heavy coats or hats somewhere because that's how people hide weapons, someone is going to stand out more when they are wearing a hat. I'm not completely sure, but I think those are the kinds of situations this freedom vs security thing are about. Being willing to be searched = less freedom (privacy), more "security." For people who trust government more than they trust peers, I think that's how they see it.

I prefer Freedom to safety any day. The liberal Wacko's who claim that the police are all the protection I need are so stupid it makes me sick. The U.S. Courts have ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect anyone...and you cannot sue them if they don't. It is up to each of us to protect ourselves and I want the freedom to be able to own a gun or weapon and use it to protect myself anytime I wish to...

> I prefer Freedom to safety any day. The liberal Wacko's who claim
> that the police are all the protection I need are so stupid it makes
> me sick. The U.S. Courts have ruled that the police have no responsibility
> to protect anyone...and you cannot sue them if they don't. It is
> up to each of us to protect ourselves and I want the freedom to be
> able to own a gun or weapon and use it to protect myself anytime I
> wish to...

WHAT? What are you talking about? Is it not the Law Enforcement creed: To Serve and Protect? When did the US Supreme Courts change that? As tax payers, it is their honor-bound duty to do what is required of them on behalf of their employers... the tax payers.

You're mad. You are mad. I don't want you to have a gun. "...and use it to protect myself anytime I wish to..." *scoff* I'm assuming that "liberal Wacko's" means people with common sense, something you don't have an abundance of, apparently. You want the freedom to own a gun??? You have it; it's yours. I want the security of having my tax dollars that pay the wages of the police officers in your area to put you to death when you've gone too far. Are you so blind that you can't recognize that there are other countries that have outlawed firearms, and they function far more peacefully and in a civilized manner than we do in the USA??? Open your eyes! I'd rather be a liberal wacko than a total and complete idiotic buffoon any day of the week.

I don't know if it's gone all the way to the Supreme Court (though I think it has) but other court cases have repeatedly ruled that police have no duty to protect you. That is, you can't sue the police if they fail to protect you, even the most egregious police failures have been ruled that way. If you think about it, the courts are right. You are responsible for your own protection, the police are there to write up a report about it afterwards.

You cannot sue the police for human error, I agree with that. However, when you are in danger of/and being attacked, are you saying that you may as well not bother calling the police until you're dead? It is their paid duty to serve and protect. If that's not true, then why do we even bother with the negative side of law enforcement (i.e. paying speeding tickets, etc)?

i value FREEDOM and safety both,but i have no desire to lose any freedoms in the name of safety or anything else someone might tell me they are being taken away for.

This was probably done to protect racist cops. I say this because it's pretty common for 911 calls from black nieghborhoods to be responded too more slowly than calls from whtie neighberhoods. Think of that gag in Scary Movie where Cindy sends out the call "White Woman In trouble" and the entire city's police force shows up a few minutes later, only not that extreme. Public Enemy did a song about it called 911 Is A Joke.

No, I'm not saying that. There are several good reasons to call the police if you're able (obviously you may not have the time or ability in the middle of an attack, it's already too late). However, if you do call the police and they don't come and save you, then if you try to sue them for failing to protect you like you thought they would then you will lose in court. This has been tried time and time again and the courts are pretty consistent on the issue. You say the police have a duty to serve and protect but the courts have held that that's only a general duty, not a duty to you in particular. If they fail in their duty, you can fire them (maybe) but you can't sue them.

As for why we bother with the police at all given all the downsides, I'd get real sarcastic if I go very far down that road. Let's just say that you'd have a real difficult time convincing most people that the downsides outweigh the advantages.

I'm sure if you research it, you can find examples to back up your expectations. I'm sure you can also find counter-examples. Nonetheless, legal jurisprudence in the US today holds that the police do not have a duty to protect you (with some exceptions such as if you're in custody). I was pretty shocked when I first heard this. However, it doesn't take a lot of thought to realize that the alternative, being able to hold police responsible if a crime is committed against you, is really unworkable.

> No, I'm not saying that. There are several good reasons to call the
> police if you're able (obviously you may not have the time or ability
> in the middle of an attack, it's already too late). However, if you
> do call the police and they don't come and save you, then if you try
> to sue them for failing to protect you like you thought they would
> then you will lose in court. This has been tried time and time again
> and the courts are pretty consistent on the issue.

Yeah... I thought that was a given. I never suggested otherwise, either. I also find fault with @$$#oles that sue the people who saved their crumby, unworthy lives with the heimlich maneuver, as they cracked the choking-victim's ribs.

>You say the police
> have a duty to serve and protect but the courts have held that that's
> only a general duty, not a duty to you in particular. If they fail
> in their duty, you can fire them (maybe) but you can't sue them.

Ummm... yeah. But, me, being part of the public makes their duty to serve and protect me. And if I call them, it's their duty to serve and protect me in particular. You're wrong in that sense. You're also wrong in the notion that I can't sue them for failing. I could sue them, but I'd probably lose.

> As for why we bother with the police at all given all the downsides,
> I'd get real sarcastic if I go very far down that road. Let's just
> say that you'd have a real difficult time convincing most people that
> the downsides outweigh the advantages.

You might have a hard time convincing folks, but I wouldn't because that's an idiot's argument. The statement and question I posed were ones of common sense: "You say the police have a duty to serve and protect but the courts have held that that's only a general duty, not a duty to you in particular. If they fail in their duty, you can fire them (maybe) but you can't sue them. " To suggest it works otherwise is like suggesting that the tax payers pay a public servant $1.00 to eat a candy bar for them. How do I benefit from their services if they aren't accountable for providing any?

You're right of course, I spoke imprecisely when I said you can't sue. You can always sue in the US. However, since it's well settled law (I found a Supreme Court case from 1856 as well as one from 2005) that the police have no duty to protect an individual, you'll lose.

If it's -40 degrees out and I'm not allowed to wear a heavy coat or a hat, this is supposed to make me safer?

Government agents arrive at my door to do a random search and trash my place, how is this different from being burglarised?

Given that government is made up of crooked politicians, disgruntled civil servants and power-mad police, anyone who trusts them above all others must be loopy!

I agree with you on those. I think people's reasoning is that if they check every bag upon boarding a bus, they can stop anyone who has a weapon in theirs. That makes them feel safer.
As for me, I wouldn't want my bag searched. I would hope that there would be enough defensive and strong people on the bus to overtake anyone who might want to use a weapon against us.

I serve to protect our freedoms and our communal safety. Please don't shoot at the badges, it might be me.

If you want to get into the whole "terrorism thing", I think that what the people need to do is ask themselves what is motivating the terrorists. I stress the people because the government already knows and they prefer that the people don't think about that. In fact, I've noticed that there is a suggestion that to do so is somehow "unpatriotic".

The terrorists are opposing US foreign policy which in no way helps the people, quite the contrary. It helps those in power, including big corporations and such like that. If the US simply stopped fudging people over in the Middle East, there wouldn't be any terrorists. The average American doesn't benefit from these foreign policy initiatives.

I don't think there is anything the people can do about it.

> If you want to get into the whole "terrorism thing", I think that
> what the people need to do is ask themselves what is motivating
> the terrorists. I stress the people because the government already
> knows and they prefer that the people don't think about that.
> In fact, I've noticed that there is a suggestion that to do so is
> somehow "unpatriotic".
>
> The terrorists are opposing US foreign policy which in no way helps
> the people, quite the contrary. It helps those in power, including
> big corporations and such like that. If the US simply stopped fudging
> people over in the Middle East, there wouldn't be any terrorists.
> The average American doesn't benefit from these foreign policy initiatives.

I agree with you completely. I often wish a nation (or a group of nations) would go to war with the USA and win. That's the only way this country will ever learn any humility and its place in the world. No one likes a bully... and a young hypocritical one at that.

I often wish a nation
> (or a group of nations) would go to war with the
> USA and win.

No, we just need another civil war.

I'd LOVE it if we had one of those, but what are the chances???

No? Does this give you any ideas?

It would probably take the entire rest of the planet to defeat the US, however, if the American people rose up and overthrew their own government...

One can always dream...

OK, let me rephrase that.....

I don't think there's anything the small minority of intelligent, brave people can do about it, with that duped majority running around.

Freedom and safety are relatively the same thing. If I am being spied on or could be kidnapped by the government for "Subversive activity" then im not very safe am I? I dont see why we should have to give up due process in this day and age simply owing to the "Threat of terrorism" sheesh...

Im a liberal, and I would choose freedom. But it seems very interesting that freedom to some simply means the right to bare arms. Nobody seems to mention whats being done by the right wingers to due process... (The right to bare arms is simply there to protect due process anyway) If you take away due process, no one is safe or free. Im not strongly for "Gun Control" but strikes me that protecting things like the right to a fair trial, with a jury of ones peers, and assumption of innosence until proof of guilt is a bit more important than arming people...

Freedom, I'll take my safety in my own hands.