• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Control: Liberty for Security

In general, do you agee with the quote in the context of gun regulations/bans?


  • Total voters
    24

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,429
Reaction score
35,269
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

This is a quote that oft showed up during PATRIOT Act discussions. However, given the recent shootings and the rise of some calling for further gun regulation, I would pose the question in relation to gun control. The right to bear arms, being inherent within the Constitution, seems as if it would qualify as an "essential liberty". Is utilizing the quote or principle behind the quote of Benjamin Franklin fair and useful when talking about the issue of gun regulatoin, control, or bans? Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?
 
Some people say that only a complete wacko with no understanding of our Constitution would object to reasonable gun control laws.

What needs to be said is only a complete wacko ignores how everyone isn't born with a silver tongue.

We have gun laws so people who can't communicate well can defend themselves. If you say "No," and people still do what they want with you, then you can blow their heads off.

Heck, you shouldn't even need to say "No." Silence is not consent.
 
gun control means many things

laws designed to hassle honest people in the specious speculation that will somehow affect people already in violation of other laws only destroy liberty

laws that punish misuse (read USE) of weapons are sound, ones that impede citizens from possessing or obtaining the same weapons our tax dollars supply civilian employees of the government have no merit
 
gun control means many things

laws designed to hassle honest people in the specious speculation that will somehow affect people already in violation of other laws only destroy liberty

laws that punish misuse (read USE) of weapons are sound, ones that impede citizens from possessing or obtaining the same weapons our tax dollars supply civilian employees of the government have no merit

I'm not sure if this is a necessary statement.

I agree with what you're saying, but the problem is there are lots of jerks out there who enjoy hassling others into humiliation. For example, there was a recent case in Texas where a sensitive person shot his neighbors for playing music too loudly. He got 40 years for that.

The real problem is a deconstruction of discourse ethics. Guns allow people to not endure abuse of process.
 
There is no Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any weapon you want to have. This discussion IS NOT about depriving anyone of their Second Amendments rights. It is about attempting to find out how the American people want to define what those rights are in actual practice.

To portray this as anything else is to engage in hyperbolic over the top intellectual fraud.
 
There is no Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any weapon you want to have.

We're not talking about "Any weapon". If you'll note the specific question in this thread, this is about guns/firearm regulations and bans.

U.S. Citizens as a whole don't "define" what a constitutional right protects.
 
Yea, haymarket's argument is backwards. The second amendment doesn't limit firearms ownership at all.

In fact, one could argue the government supports citizens owning WMDs considering the usage of Letters of Marque during the Barbary Wars.
 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

This is a quote that oft showed up during PATRIOT Act discussions. However, given the recent shootings and the rise of some calling for further gun regulation, I would pose the question in relation to gun control. The right to bear arms, being inherent within the Constitution, seems as if it would qualify as an "essential liberty". Is utilizing the quote or principle behind the quote of Benjamin Franklin fair and useful when talking about the issue of gun regulatoin, control, or bans? Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?

First off, I do not believe that any one right is “more important” than another. They are all a set of inalienable properties of being human and each carries with it an idealism of human decency, dignity and worth. You can argue that there are different time scales and dynamics which would occur if any specific right is removed. Perhaps if you banned guns, things would go to hell a bit slower than if you banned free speech. But ban either, and you end up in the same place. Once we start degrading any of our rights, it’s all over. Government will forever argue encroachment on some level and will continue to whittle away ALL our rights until we are nothing but slaves on the land our forefathers conquered.

I think the quote you make here applies to all rights and is a general warning to us all. Abdicate you rights, and you will open the floodgates to your own enslavement. Which is true and will remain true for as long as we are free (well I suppose it would be true after we’re not free, but it’s a moot point then).
 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

This is a quote that oft showed up during PATRIOT Act discussions. However, given the recent shootings and the rise of some calling for further gun regulation, I would pose the question in relation to gun control. The right to bear arms, being inherent within the Constitution, seems as if it would qualify as an "essential liberty". Is utilizing the quote or principle behind the quote of Benjamin Franklin fair and useful when talking about the issue of gun regulatoin, control, or bans? Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?
It's fair to use this quote, sure. However, the problem is that people don't know how to use it. I've seen this quote posted many times over the last few months, several times in debates I've been in, but whenever people post it, they don't defend it or explain why the person they're debating should accept it. They just post it, act like it speaks for itself and then go about their business. In fact, that's what people usually do for any quote or saying that they use - just decide that the argument is so self-evident that it doesn't need to be defended.

When it comes to the gun control I favor, I don't think Ben's argument actually applies. To me, "essential liberty" is a pretty subjective term (which is one of the reasons posting the quote as if the argument is self-evident without any defense is nonsensical). When it comes to the Bill of Rights, I believe that one has given up Essential Liberty when they have either agreed to get rid of an entire right or agreed to put so many regulations on a right that it's nearly impossible to exercise it. I don't believe any of the regulations I support on guns do that, so the quote has no applicability to my own beliefs as far as I'm concerned.

As far as some Constitutional Rights being more important than others relative to regulation, I would say the free speech is the most important, period, relative to that point and in general. When speech is regulated into oblivion, we're screwed.
 
I don't think what's causing the problem with criminal gun use has as much to do with the access to firearms as it does with a cultural imbalance with crime and violence. Could some of the current gun related deaths be mitigated with stricter controls, possibly but not as near as much as a switch from promoting vicious behavior in almost every form of entertainment.
 
its a stupid quote, which sees the world through a very bi-polar outlook.

The world & this issue has many shades of grey, and everyone but the extremists can see that.
 
There is no Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any weapon you want to have. This discussion IS NOT about depriving anyone of their Second Amendments rights. It is about attempting to find out how the American people want to define what those rights are in actual practice.

To portray this as anything else is to engage in hyperbolic over the top intellectual fraud.

It's generally understood that the 2nd Amendment applies to shoulder fired weapons and hand guns. No one is make the silly suggestion that people whould be able to own rocket launchers, nukes, or long range artillery--although it is legal to own certain types of artillery.
 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

This is a quote that oft showed up during PATRIOT Act discussions. However, given the recent shootings and the rise of some calling for further gun regulation, I would pose the question in relation to gun control. The right to bear arms, being inherent within the Constitution, seems as if it would qualify as an "essential liberty". Is utilizing the quote or principle behind the quote of Benjamin Franklin fair and useful when talking about the issue of gun regulatoin, control, or bans? Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?
I voted wrong.

I will post this from another thread.

There is at least 270 million firearms in the hands of US citizens in this country. Out of those 270 million privately owned firearms only several have been involved in some pathetic loser shooting up a place.If this site is accurate then only 12,252 murders caused are by someone using firearm each year.Assuming that each murder represents a single firearm then that means only 0.004537777777777778% of the 270 million firearms are use for murder each year. So why is it logical or reasonable to implement more infringements on the 2nd amendment when 99.99546222222222% of firearms are not used in murder?
 
A couple thoughts from peoples posts....

TPD, I agree completely with your view that people will just post it and expect it to stand alone as some universal counter. I'll also note that part of the problem with that is so often people put forward a paraphased version...often leaving out "essential" in terms of liberty along with "little" and "temporary" with regards to freedom.

Dak...this is actually a fair point in terms of what it covers. You could say that "arms" is very subjective as to what it may mean and as such it's fair to limit certain aspects. However, the same argument could be used in terms of the subjective term of "unreasonable". This is why I specifically narrowly confined it to firearms in this particular hypothetical.

Thunder...I actually disagree iwth the notion of hte bi-polar outlook of the quote itself. I think that term fits better with those who often paraphrase it. Ben's quote does not negate the notion that liberty CAN, and perhaps even SHOULD, be given up for security at times...however so often those that utilize it do seem to present a version of the quote that would lead one to follow it. Ben's quote actually seems to be rooted in a world with shades of grey as a means of judging that greyness and which, in general, way is the wise one to follow in his opinion depending on the factors involved.
 
..Thunder...I actually disagree iwth the notion of hte bi-polar outlook of the quote itself. I think that term fits better with those who often paraphrase it. Ben's quote does not negate the notion that liberty CAN, and perhaps even SHOULD, be given up for security at times...however so often those that utilize it do seem to present a version of the quote that would lead one to follow it. Ben's quote actually seems to be rooted in a world with shades of grey as a means of judging that greyness and which, in general, way is the wise one to follow in his opinion depending on the factors involved.

interesting. I shall look into this.
 
I read on a questionable website the other day that in the 12 years before the Australian ban on certain types of assault weapons, there were 13 mass shootings, and in the 12 years since, there have been zero.

Anybody know if that is true and, if so, want to weigh in?

To me, the "right" of individuals to own a weapon capable of shooting 100 rounds in a matter of minutes is not worth the lives of those killed in mass shootings in the United States over the past decade.
 
Last edited:
My stance on gun control is the same on domestic safety: liberty may be sacrificed for security, but I require a good cost benefit ratio. In both cases, you often end up with large amounts of laws that intrude upon citizens and yet are completely ineffective in keeping the safe. Significant portion of gun control laws are created by people utterly ignorant about the functional abilities of firearms and end up completely useless. Many weapons are banned based on entirely meaningless qualities like bayonet mounts and flash hiders.

Gun control should be about an informed and rational analysis of firearms and their distribution to minimize gun violence and maximize personal freedoms. Instead it is dominate by ideologues who simply push their emotional reactions rather than carefully considering the consequences of their policies on the American people.
 
"Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?

Yes, it is more important (imo) than others (with the exception of the 1st, which I give equal weight), because it's our insurance policy to use as a last resort.
 
You guys DO realize that the second amendment is about protecting the citizenry FROM the government right?

The framers had just finished a war in which the military that was there to protect them was used to enforce the rule of a tryanical king. Just look at the way it was written...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -2nd Amendment

for those who dont get this let me explain... The framers basically said... OK well we dont see anyway around not having a standing army to protect our country from the outside, so then we have to arm the people to keep the government from using the military against the people the way it just was...

It is a NEVER AGAIN clause, and it was second ONLY to the right to speak your mind against the government, and be free to worship as you wished... ALL of the first 10 were about protecting the people from the government, not the other way around.
 
My stance on gun control is the same on domestic safety: liberty may be sacrificed for security, but I require a good cost benefit ratio. In both cases, you often end up with large amounts of laws that intrude upon citizens and yet are completely ineffective in keeping the safe. Significant portion of gun control laws are created by people utterly ignorant about the functional abilities of firearms and end up completely useless. Many weapons are banned based on entirely meaningless qualities like bayonet mounts and flash hiders.

Gun control should be about an informed and rational analysis of firearms and their distribution to minimize gun violence and maximize personal freedoms. Instead it is dominate by ideologues who simply push their emotional reactions rather than carefully considering the consequences of their policies on the American people.

If you want to minimize gun violence, then you REQUIRE everyone to carry a gun. gun violence is highest where gun control is highest, at least in the US... vbiolent crimes went down markedly when florida passed thier concealed carry laws, and very strict gun controls havent prevented the hundreds of gun crimes in chicago this year...

Washington DC which is practically a gun free zone was the murder capital of the US for many years, even with amazingly strict control laws.
 
My stance on gun control is the same on domestic safety: liberty may be sacrificed for security, but I require a good cost benefit ratio. In both cases, you often end up with large amounts of laws that intrude upon citizens and yet are completely ineffective in keeping the safe. Significant portion of gun control laws are created by people utterly ignorant about the functional abilities of firearms and end up completely useless. Many weapons are banned based on entirely meaningless qualities like bayonet mounts and flash hiders.

Gun control should be about an informed and rational analysis of firearms and their distribution to minimize gun violence and maximize personal freedoms. Instead it is dominate by ideologues who simply push their emotional reactions rather than carefully considering the consequences of their policies on the American people.

I think yes and no. Certainly we are in a realm where we are not advocating anarchy. There is some necessity for government and government force in order to ensure the rights and liberties of the individual. So on an absolute scale, no one is saying "no compromise". However, I think that once you establish what government is for, anything above that must be treated with extreme caution. Certainly there could be substantial aggregate safety gain through suspension and/or erosion of the 4th or the 1st or any of our rights. On that level you can start to argue away any of our rights on safety concerns. But it's not so much a cost analysis as it is a balance.

The base is that free is not, never has been, and never will be safe. There is inherent dangers associated with freedom. You use government on some level reactively in order to for the most part keep it cleaned up. But we'll never make it zero, particularly in a free state. So instead of saying something of the sort of "restricting guns makes us safer", we have to consider the erosion of our rights. Perhaps making guns illegal could make us "safer" by some metric, but is it worth giving up our freedom over? Once you set a precedent for government action, it's going to run with it for as long as it can possibly get away with. Once you say 1 right for safety, government is going to be looking at all rights. Cost analysis is fine on the local scale, but everything must be related back to the global scale as well. We have to understand the nature of government and the road it will take when we consider expanding its power. If we do so haphazardly, the consequences are going to be extreme and beyond that which was intended. Getting it back ain't gonna be so easy either.
 
Getting it back ain't gonna be so easy either.

You dont ever get anything back from the government that you do not take back with force, either real or implied.
 
I actually believes gun control decreases both my liberty and my security

the liberty is obvious

the security is too as we see with Chicago and DC

gun control general only affects law abiding people and means criminals can victimize the innocents much easier
 
I have a hard time dealing with those that fail to realize laws only affect the law abidding...

Gun Control laws on their face cannot have any effect on the crime rates, since those that commit crimes, will not fail to commit a crime, to commit a crime.
 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

This is a quote that oft showed up during PATRIOT Act discussions. However, given the recent shootings and the rise of some calling for further gun regulation, I would pose the question in relation to gun control. The right to bear arms, being inherent within the Constitution, seems as if it would qualify as an "essential liberty". Is utilizing the quote or principle behind the quote of Benjamin Franklin fair and useful when talking about the issue of gun regulatoin, control, or bans? Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?

I wouldn't make any new laws for this reason. I especially wouldn't make any while the emotions are high.
 
Back
Top Bottom