Freedom vs Safety

imported post

A theory to consider: When an individual perceives himself as non-expendable and overly self-important, freedom has been dealt a death blow.

As an even less than casual observer of history I believe I have learned one thing; our founding fathers deemed themselves expendable in the quest for freedom. When they signed the Declaration of Independence they knew theywere signing a warrant for their arrest or their death. They were willing to sacrifice all safety for freedom.

So, how many of us view ourselves are expendable in the quest to maintain freedom? To bring in another taboo subject.... If you look at the Bible and look at the number of times that Jesus referred to people as sheep, I think you will come to the conclusion that being a sheep (defined as: safety loving more than freedom loving person) is our true nature and to be a person that staunchly stands for freedom requires us to stand squarely against our true nature.

I for one believe that I am (in the grand scheme of things) expendable and that freedom is more important than safety (especially government provided safety :what. As long as letter writing, speaking up for liberty and voting maintains those freedoms... then that's what I'll do.I'll stand for Liberty and pray that more will not be needed.

What say you?



"It ain't all about MeBaby! And it sure as Hell ain't all about YOU!"

imported post

In order to move this along towards being firearm related, and more specifically towards the open carry of handguns, I'll try to reframe your question and then give you my response.

But first - the Founding Fatherswere not willing to risk all safety for freedom. They not only told King George III to kiss their backsides, but they took up arms - and convinced others to do the same - to make sure that Georgie could not come over and stretch their necks. There was a possibility they could have lost, and if they did lose they would have been Those Colonial Traitors instead of the Founding Fathers. But the force of arms and will prevailed for them, and we are American citizens instead of English subjects.

Why do I choose to carry a handgun, and why do I choose to carry it openly as opposed to concealed? Do those choices relate in any way to my believing that there is a distinction between safety and freedom?

I carry a handgun because it is the most convenient method for me to provide the ability to secure my own safety. In order to do that, I must cherish the freedom to make that choice, and the freedom to accept the responsibilities that derive from that decision. The opposite would be to eitherchoose someone else (the police? your momma?) to secure my personal safety, or choose to allow complete random chance to determine if I will be safe (nobody - including me -gives the proverbial rodent's hindquarters if I am or am not).

I open carry because it is the way I have found works best for me to declare the above decision to the community. It is more convenient than a sign worn around my neck, less cumbersome than carrying a poster or banner, and less expensive than taking out an ad every week so that everyone will have a chance to read about my decision. Additionally, there is a cultural shorthand involved that reduces the above paragraph to my act of open carrying and other folks noticing that. No words involved, no translation from one language to another.

The final question is the most difficult. Do I believe there is a distinction between saftey and freedom? My answer is unequically NO. Using the analogy of the flock of sheep, I believe they are neither free nor safe. The shepard protects them from wolves and other predators, and guides them to the best pastures, for the purpose of fattening them for the kill. Now perehaps that is the reason sheep exist, and I have no problem with that, as I admit I find most parts of the tasty.

Am I free? Again, my answer is unequivically NO. If I was, I would not need to secure the permission of any person or government to do anything I felt like doing. What freedom I have is restricted - some by social convention that I have agreed to abide by, and some by social convention that I do not agree to abide by.

Am I safe? Again, unequivically NO. There are things out there that can harm me. There is nothing I can do about that, except decide whether or not to spend time worrying about the killer astiroid, or the micrometeorite, or the whatever absolutely random something that is going to knock me off in spite of worrying and taking all possible precautions. Instead, I choose to focus on those things that I believe I can either control or influence. I do not dart out in front of cars. I do not dress up in hundred dollar bills and skip thru "the projects" at night.

I get my flu shot every fall. I take my meds so that in spite of having various conditions and ailments they do not become worse. I try to maintain situational awareness. I seek out training in the use of many different tools and techniques, and adapt that to my own situation. One part of that is carrying a handgun openly.

In summary, I try to retain as much personal freedom as I can, and try tosecure as much safety for myself as I can. I like to think I'm freer than the sheep in the herd. I like to think I'm safe enough that I do not need to walk down the street clutching my firearm and swiveling my head so that the little girl in The Exorsist looks like a statue.

YMMV.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

Freedom vs Safety.....

You have tobalance the two.

The ultimate freedom.. to do any damn thing you like.You get to decide what YOU feel like doing today.

If you had "complete freedom" you couldpull out your gun and point it at people when you felt like it. If you accidentally shot them... Oh well.

Is this fair to the others around you?

So that the community can remain safe and be free of danger you CANNOT point guns at them.If there were no laws to stop this and further a save environment... the person doing it would go unpunished and could do it again, and again.

Over time the people have realised that things being done were actually a danger and needed to be stopped for the betterment of the people as a whole.

You could beoverly safe... but you will still have people that break the law and harm others. You will never get away from this type of activity.

So you have to create a delicate balance of allowing to the people to roam free... but also maintain an environment of safety.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

[ snip ]

So that the community can remain safe and be free of danger you CANNOT point guns at them.If there were no laws to stop this and further a save environment... the person doing it would go unpunished and could do it again, and again.

[snip]

Click to expand...

If there were laws that actually stopped this, then it wouldn't happen, no? However, it does. So, how do laws stop this?

On a side note, complete and ultimate freedom does not mean that I can go about willy nilly being irresponsible and not respecting other people's rights. It's been said time and time again, but I don't think people realize the gravity of the statement....

With every freedom/right comes an equal and/or greater amount of responsibility.

imported post

hlh wrote:

To have true "freedom" it must be limited within a moral framework, otherwise chaos ensues.

Click to expand...

I don't completely agree with this -- when you start mixing moral values with law and freedom, you get issues that you have today with legislation restricting how you can wear your pants or to say that certain races, religions or sexual orientations cannot marry. A good deal of the civil rights issues America has faced in the past were caused by 'Morals' or, more possibly, those who defined the morals.

I think morals should, for the most part, be taken out of the picture and looked at from a fairly straight viewpoint of freedoms. We have this freedom. We have a right to exercise it. Social/Moral/Emotional acceptance be damned, we have a right.

In that respect, I feel that fairness should also not play a role... Fairness is a strong attribute of socialism. Is it fair that Bill Gates has 64 billion dollars and I'm making a paltry 50k a year? No. It would be fair if that money were distributed... screw that, he worked hard for his money -- let folks reap what they sow and act according to the freedoms to which they're entitled.

If it's well-defined what Freedoms are protected, with well-written laws that are for the betterment of a society and do not infringe on individual freedoms, we'd probably have a better place in which to live.

imported post

Good discussion. Wish I could find the quote where our founding father's stated that freedom/democracy without God, and morality, will fail.

Click to expand...

I'll be honest... My wife is devout Catholic and I was baptised Methodist but am agnostic. It upsets me that the church condones refusing communion to politicians who support abortion measures -- ideally the politician is supposed to be the voice of his constituancy. Though that may not always be the case, the fact that the church(es), originator of morals, in my view, are selective as to whom they wish to include and that, within itself is discriminatory.

Justice should be blind to race, gender, creed and any other class of people -- I'm talking about REAL equal application of well-written laws that don't infringe on the freedoms of people.

Especially when it comes to gun legislation, I think a lot if it is knee-jerk reactions to issues that are specific to an area and current situation with no regard to future hindrances on the people. A combination of 'what we feel is best for the people' along with 'this is what I think is right and moral' has caused more issues than not.

imported post

Much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on Biblical law, a "higher morality", and Biblical law agrees with many other religions other than Christianity and Judaism. "Thou shalt not murder" is pretty universal, except for the criminal element.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but it doesn't have to be. If you base the society off of freedoms, you can achieve the same result. By murdering someone, you're irrevokably taking away their right to life -- considering we have the death penalty, it's obvious (to me at least ;p) that a lot of laws aren't following that moral track.

With almost any citizen on citizen crime, you can find where someone is infringing on someone elses freedoms, whether it be property rights, freedom, travel and life. A flaw I do see with this design are the 'common sense' laws; for instance, saying you can't cross a street against traffic, you must drive under the speed limit... it's those 'common sense' values that would allow 'ambitious' legislators to say, 'well, this is common sense' on a piece of legislation, something which I think happens a lot today.

As a disclaimer, these are all just my thoughts and ideas... My utopian world, according to Wynder. I've put all of about 2 months of thoughts here and there whenever my mind wanders to the subject and they, by no way, are flawless or something I think might ever work in the real world. Just a sharing of ideas here.