"Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither." ~My ol' pal Ben Frank

by Anonymous 11 years ago

a) this is a mis-attributed quote to him. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts(broken link since 2012-04-01) that were used in it. b) you didn't even get the quote right c) just because a smart person says something, doesn't make it correct.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh... well here's a list for you then. A. I actually know Ben Frank and I remember him coining that, so suck it wikipedia. B. Do you see who has more loves? Is it me or you? Please remind me . It's called a summary... I'm sorry I didn't memorize the book or google it... before saying it. I'm sorry the message is straight to the point. C. In this case it does. And it just goes to show that you don't understand the quote. Your quote is against your own post. But in any case, if you start taking away people's rights/freedom for this reason or that, then you are going against the very ideology this great nation is built upon. Taking rights here for this reason and taking rights there for that reason won't lead to a safe future... it'll lead to a sad future where the people fear the government and not vice-versa. Postscript, I grew up in a communist country and have family that lived in Russia during the cold war and I'm not one that says Obama is a socialist.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

a) That wasn't funny b) I don't think the loves have anything to do with it. It's a mis-attributed quote c) You really think that people who are /that/ unstable should be allowed to have guns?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

A. Your points a and b are void. B. If we start discriminating, there will be no end.. is all I'm saying.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

A) I was just responding considering your a&b were so moot. B) that's a common argument which is completely incorrect. You can say one thing with out going on the extreme end of the spectrum. For example, when I say breaking the law in certain situations, I'm not condoning murder.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Umm, alright... tell someone who has lived in soviet Russia that....

by Anonymous 11 years ago

OP, someone disagreed with you and countered your argument with a pretty decent quote. Try not to get so butthurt. I almost agreed with your post at first but KickAss completely changed my view.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

^_^ Thank you acisseJ :D

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not getting "butthurt." I'm rebutting her quote, because I disagree with it, it was misquoted, and misattributed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You corrected it... I'm sorry I misquoted... I'm not a walking dictionary. I apologize. But your quote is right and your quote is a good response to your op. So take that! Yourself!?!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But I don't understand, I just propose to make it harder for things like school shootings and the Denver movie theater thing to happen.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Uhh... are you serious? You think a guy got access to those weapons legally? ;___; Seriously though... think about what you're saying. Do you think that guy just walked into a store and bought those guns? How do you think that went for him? He had access to military vests. AND he had no prior signs of violence... it's just as easy for someone to become a criminal as it is for a criminal not to continue his crime.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Obviously you are not going to prevent everything, without taking away too much freedom, that's why I don't suggest that. The reason this guy became violent is probably because he was at the age in which people become a paranoid schizophrenic. But taking away guns from people who pose a threat at least make it HARDER for tragedies like this to happen.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Did this guy pose a threat?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well first of all, kind of. His mother came forward almost immediately and said her son did it. It makes it seem like she could have reported him to be on homicide watch. I'm saying in the grander scheme of things, people show very clear signs before they reach their breaking point and begin killing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So you think the mom KNEW he would do something like this, but was just like, "Nah, I'm sure it's nothing"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Little known fact; Japan during WWII were really weary about invading America due to the fact that they knew MANY americans owned weapons. So ill just leave this here...and you guys do what you do.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you saw the news report, the mom came forward after it happened and basically said "that sounds like my son." Look, this argument clearly isn't going anywhere. I didn't word my post as well as I should have, but you clearly unrealistically think that this will lead to fascism, and won't change your mindset. Therefore, I feel this argument is futile, and believe we are just agitating each other.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am not agitated, I have just seen the other side... and I am saying it's not pretty. You on the other hand, have only seen one side. And I mean sure, it's possible you may know more about dictatorships and communism more than the guy who has lived under such rule for about 8 years, BUT there's also a chance you could be wrong. If you want to end it, then fine.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Alright, this is my last comment to that. You don't have to go to the extreme for this to happen, and it won't lead us into the extreme.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Where did you live?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

KickAss: It's not discrimination if there is a functional reason for doing something. Blacks are not inferior to whites, so there is discrimination there. But a schizo has a much higher chance of randomly shooting a bunch of people, so it's not discrimination to deny one the means to do so. Mentally stable people still get guns. They are the majority.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh so long as they're the minority, it's okay to infringe upon their rights? And who knew that this guy was going to do this? And also... do you think that guns being illegal would have stopped this guy? Seriously though think about what he did... what COULD have possibly stopped him? Making a law that said, "If you suspect your child of possibly becoming a psychopathic killer, turn him in to the FBI law" addressed to all mothers?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

@KickAss He //did// get those guns legally, and he purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition over the internet. Also, I agree with some of the things you've said, but I think you're reading just a little too far into this. I'm as pro-equal rights as the next guy, but I definitely see OP's point. If someone has the potential to harm themselves and countless others, I think it should be more difficult for them to do it. Obviously, the people who really want to kill others are the ones who could probably get the guns anyway, but what's the hurt in trying? Honestly, I'd rather not let anyone have guns, but since that's not happening anytime soon, we should do all that we can to prevent harm.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Jonesy: that's quite interesting. Do you have some sort of source?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not at all. Just kind of an old fact in the ol brain. But makes enough sense ha

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Dammit OP shut your fucking face! Kick ass has BEEN THERE. They're saying they know the side you are talking about and KNOW where it leads, it's a bad direction. And they are saying it's progressive, it starts with scitzo's, depression, and criminals. Then a boy who shows psychopathic tendencies like killing insects is part of it too. Then another terrorist attack and suddenly no Muslims can, or middle eastern decendants. Then suddenly there's a huge shooting from colored kids that grew up in a bad neighborhood and some idiot politician passes a law about keeping guns from black people who grew up in near poverty. We particularly in the west have long danced on a fine balance between anarchy and dictatorship, because we haven't made irrational steps in either direction. Also I think it strongly depends on what the criminal charge is. A man who is out of jail for killing his best friend and cheating wife should probably not own a gun; but I've been convicted of public urination, and put on a 1 year probation with a criminal record for it, and I would like the right to own a gun some day.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

@ John I think it should go as far as mentally handicapped people and no further. Muslims aren't terrorists; terrorists (mostly) are Muslim. Besides, if there is a demand, a supply WILL be found. People who want to kill people WILL find guns, legally or not. Mentally handicapped people don't want to shoot, but might if presented with the opportunity.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What everyone seems to be saying is that it will lead to discrimination based on race, but it won't. Paranoid Schizophrenics and violent criminals are the two groups which commonly respond violently. It's not a racial thing, and would not BECOME a racial thing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh alright, thank you mr fortune teller... can you tell me when I'll get married to my girlfriend?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Are you the kind of person who thinks gay marriage will bead to bestiality?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, I think gay people are set in their sexuality and need for marriage, so it would be quite out there for them to suddenly turn to bestiality instead

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not the gays becoming furries. I mean some people think that if we legalise gay marriage, furries are going to want to have their sexuality made legal too. Just because something allows or disallows one thing, doesn't mean all things in the same broad category are also going to go the same way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know what you meant, I was making a joke and the expense of the semantics of your comment. No I don't think gay marriage is a gateway to bestiality of course. I do on the other hand believe gay marriage legalization is a gateways to incest legalization (in the more acceptable cousin to cousin variety) as arguments for and against are fairly interchangeable

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People with depression aren't going to hurt other people because they're depressed. And they'll just kill themselves some other way if they really want to.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well I was mainly talking about people on suicide/homicide watch. Also, I mainly meant people who might be angry suicidal, enough to go and try to kill others and then themselves.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, gotcha.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

hey , doesn't matter if I die! At least i die free! Your "freedom" have cost thousands of lives with all the school shootings and cinema massacres. 'MURICA! FUCK YEAH!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Tell that to kickass.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not like this, because I'm ignorant. You're like that, cos you are. You have no idea what it's like living in a country, where you're terrified of the government.... "I'm a spoiled brat who has had everything handed to me, so I think personal freedom is a small price to pay for security" is what I hear when people like you say that... you have no idea how lucky you are to be American... and for you to make your post is not only disrespectful, but also ignorant. Sure America isn't perfect, but it's far better than a country that's too scared to talk about how soldiers raped your best friend, because you're afraid that you might get taken away and put in jail.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But it makes much more sense in a society in which people are not ideal, it makes sense to put restrictions to protect your people. I understand because of your background you're gun-shy, well, you're gun-shy of being gun-shy, but restricting guns from people in danger of killing others will not lead to soldiers raping your friends.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No.. but I'm saying, it's a start. Let's say you're at point a... and you're trying to get to point b... unless you have a teleportation device, you have to take a path to point b. During this path, things will change, maybe not a lot, but slowly things will change... so that by the time you are at b, it doesn't even look like a anymore, but you don't realize it, cos these paths usually have gradual changes

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'll use this example again. Let's say we want to decriminalize j-walking because we want to reform laws. We're walking from point a and taking a step towards point b. Does this mean that we're going to make murder legal because of this? No. Just as taking away guns from people on homicide watch/ with a violent record won't lead to the government running everything.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, but you're also taking away from people who are depressed.... What have they done wrong? Or people who could POSSIBLY be paranoid schizophrenics... it's okay if a few people have no rights, as long as everyone is happy? This is the mindset that is in communist countries... "Oh it's okay, your best friend got shot, it's for the greater good, it's for the good of the country. Now shush up, the government might be listening." This is one of the number one lessons you learn in any communist country. Your country comes first, then the people. How do you even keep up with this? By forcing parents/loved ones to tell on their kids/loved ones? Or should the government keep a closer eye on us? Also, you're not going to come in one day and say, "You guys have lost all your rights. You will do everything I say." People will obviously revolt....

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am not an American, I am a proud Dane! And there is a reason why we are being mentioned as one of the happiest countries in the world! Not everybody has the right to own a firearm here (in fact, they only hand out weapon licenses for hunting and commercial purposes), but we don't measure our happiness by looking at how easy it is to get your hands on a stick! Maybe that is how it works in the US! But that doesn't matter, because as soon as you start pointing at me and shouting "Communist! Communist!", you can automatically emerge victorious from this debate

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Or as soon as US removes Denmark... from existence .

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, because that is Grade A American solution to everything: Fuck diplomacy, nuke the shit out of your opponent! I am not saying Americans are stupid, but you sound like a redneck!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. :>

by Anonymous 11 years ago

> Call opponent ignorant > Think you have won the debate You know what? You can have your guns'n'shit, it's only a matter of time before you gun happy people start shooting at each other. And when you do, I will be sitting at home enjoying a giant Filet-o-Fish menu from McDonalds and laugh uncontrollably

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I thought criminals already weren't able to have certain firearms? And I read what you said, you should probably should have made it the angry suicidal instead of just depressed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I believe that it changes from state to state for specifics on gun restrictions, but generally, it's illegal for a felon to buy a gun.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Hey I didnt know where to jump in up there so ill just make my own lonely comment down here. So not just a repeat criminal, but a repeat violent criminal, that would be okay i suppose because they have obviously shown that they will infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others and dont deserve the right to bare arms. But for the depression victims and the schizophrenics you cant tell them no to guns, although it does make sense on why they shouldnt have one, at that point youre deciding the rights of a man/woman who has done no wrong. At that point you're basically saying "im better than you because youre defected" which isnt true because each life should have the same value and no one should regulate another person. I truly get why you would want to ban guns from them but you cant because that does set up a fucked up hierarchy against defected people who deserve the same freedoms as you or i because they didnt ask for those problems. Where as a violent criminal did, also my brother has enough marks on his file as a drunk driver that he cant vote or own a gun so i think the government already did the criminal part.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I really did not make my post clear enough. I mainly meant depressed/ schizophrenic people on homicide watch.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Im pretty sure if theyre on watch they stay at a clinic or something and if not theyre on watch and should be watched lol. But yeah that wasnt made clear.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

a violation of freedom is not "a small price to pay," it's the ultimate price to pay. without freedom you have nothing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Better safe than sorry!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

When buying a gun, there is a background check, no matter who you are. If you have committed a felony, it's illegal to buy firearms or ammunition. Most places also check for a history of mental illness and look for warning signs, though it's generally the decision of the shop owner whether or not to sell it. Personally, I hate guns. I think owning assault weapons just for the sake of owning them is kind of stupid, but to each their own. I just want them out of the hands of people that are a danger to themselves and to others.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The problem is that some states are much more lenient than others in their background checks. Some states don't actually call for a background check of the buyer's mental health, which is something I fail to comprehend. Also, there are a lot of guns for sale on the black market, and they don't require any kind of check. Unless it's one you cash at a bank.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, a lot needs to be done when it comes to gun control. I understand people don't want their guns taken away, but if someone is dangerous, they shouldn't own something so, well, dangerous. As for your second point, it's unfortunately nearly impossible to regulate a black market for guns (or anything, really). It's sad, but true.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Felons with violent pasts can't usually own weapons in most places. So how do they get them? Illegally. Banning them wont change anything. Depression victims -- shouldn't lose constitutionally guaranteed freedoms because they feel a certain way and if they feel like committing suicide they'll find a way regardless. Also, the loss of freedoms, especially those in the bill of rights is never a small price. In fact, it's one of the biggest prices to pay. There is a reason that gun rights are the second thing the founders thought of when they were thinking about inalienable rights. I’ll leave you with a parting quote from Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You make a valid points, but the original intention of the second amendment was to allow men to purchase firearms for hunting or to join the militia. In this case, the "tyranny in government" he was referring to was the British government. I'm not arguing that we repeal the second amendment, but there has been a 250 year change in context that ought to be accounted for.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

As defined by Merriam-Webster, militia is the entire body of able-bodied male citizens as being declared by law as being subject to call to military service. In other words: if you've signed up for the draft you are part of the militia. And that quote was from 1776 so that may have been hid thoughts but the quote applies to all free men and all governments. It isn't just a one-time deal

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm one of the most liberal people you'll ever meet. I oppose the death penalty, am pro-choice, and support gay marriage. But even I think that if we start restricting who is and who is not allowed to have guns, things could start blowing up in out faces (no pun intended). In a perfect world, there would be no problem with guns, and your idea would be fine, but unfortunately, it won't be allowed in America today.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In a perfect world, everyone could have guns without having to worry that they would do something horrific with them. Unfortunately, people use guns in sinister ways, so while those people may still find ways to get the guns, might as well make it more difficult for them.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yep. More difficult for them and impossible for everyone else that wants one for honest uses

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They had gun control in Germany when Hitler took power.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There is also gun control in modern-day Canada, which was named the smartest country in the world in 2011. One single law doesn't define freedom or democracy, it is a combination of rights, laws, and responsibilities that leads to democracy. I personally believe that guns are completely unnecessary for civillians to own, and America would be a much safer place without private firearms.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

While I can see your point and do not really feel strongly about the gun control issue, I do see Thomas Jefferson's point about the right to bear arms as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Recently in the United States, nonviolent demonstrations such as Occupy Wall Street have been subject to extreme measures of police brutality. The US is slowly turning into a police state. Again, gun control is not my main issue, I can see the pros and cons of it, but I can see why people are against it. (Imagine if they started barring people who disagree with government policy from owning guns.)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I really don't get why people in America want to carry guns! In Australia, nobody has guns and we're happy. Why should people carry weapons around with them? For protection? But if no one was allowed guns, then there'd be less to protect from. Or am I missing something?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

the idea is that the people who are actually likely to use guns to kill or threaten people are the ones who don't care about the law, so if you ban guns, it's only law-abiding citizens who will really pay attention to it. so the violent criminals who are a problem now will still be violent criminals, and the people who would just be victims would be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Criminals and the mentally ill aren't allowed to buy guns in the first place. The background checks are pretty thorough.

by Anonymous 11 years ago