The legacy of 'W'?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Because only if you're guilty of something should you worry about it.
What the far left needs to realize that in order to be very protected there has to be some "rights" that need to be bent. It's give and take. No one is infridging on my constitutional rights, and I like it that way.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."

--Benjamin Franklin

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."

--Benjamin Franklin

Sadly, I agree with you...and Ben.
Either way you look at it, we're not in a good scenario. If we don't boost safety, we are in more danger, if we do boost safety we then we infringe on rights. It's basically a catch 22. Fact is, we have been "hated" so long that this was bound to happen. That's what happens when you're #1, everyone wants to take you down a peg. This is why every great government in history has failed at some point. Make no mistake about it, this one will too.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Sadly, I agree with you...and Ben.
Either way you look at it, we're not in a good scenario. If we don't boost safety, we are in more danger, if we do boost safety we then we infringe on rights. It's basically a catch 22. Fact is, we have been "hated" so long that this was bound to happen. That's what happens when you're #1, everyone wants to take you down a peg. This is why every great government in history has failed at some point. Make no mistake about it, this one will too.

Yes, it is a catch 22 -- you can't have both. I just wish America would understand that. IMO, it is one of those very rare absolutes. If you sacrifice any liberty for security, it is only a matter of time until you have no liberties -- and therefore no security.

I think those quotes offer good insight into the minds of the Founders, and the purpose they saw for the government. It is clear to me that the Founders did not deem personal security a responsibility of the government. Instead, the government's role was to ensure that the people's liberties were protected. I guess we have just gotten lazy and weak over the years, and now we expect the government to protect us.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Yes, it is a catch 22 -- you can't have both. I just wish America would understand that. IMO, it is one of those very rare absolutes. If you sacrifice any liberty for security, it is only a matter of time until you have no liberties -- and therefore no security.

I think those quotes offer good insight into the minds of the Founders, and the purpose they saw for the government. It is clear to me that the Founders did not deem personal security a responsibility of the government. Instead, the government's role was to ensure that the people's liberties were protected. I guess we have just gotten lazy and weak over the years, and now we expect the government to protect us.

I 100% agree. Very good post.