Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
"Keeping Americans safe" is not necessarily mutually exclusive of "freedom."
It sounds to me like there are parts of Chicago in which the citizens are not FREE to go about their personal lives without FEAR of being killed. It seems IT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR GOVERNMENT TO ASSURE THEY CAN BE FREE TO GO ABOUT THEIR PERSONAL LIVES.
Apparently doing that job of keeping them "FREE" requires more "GOVERNMENT"!
|
Do you try to misread my posts? Of course government should protect people. Where did I say it should not? But the primary purpose is to keep the country free. It's a matter of perspective. The government does not "give" freedom. Freedom is the natural state of humanity. There are people in Chicago, and all over, who are trying to deny others their natural right to not be denied their life, liberty or property by force (or fraud). That's where government steps in. I've maintained that since I started posting here. Pay attention.
You can take away guns in the name of safety, but not freedom.
You can prohibit speech in the name of creating a "safe space", but not freedom.
You can register members of a certain religion in the name of safety, but not freedom.
There are lots of actions that government can take in the name of safety, but are anti-freedom. If we make our primary focus safety, we lose freedom. If our primary focus is freedom, then safety measures are less likely to resemble tyranny.
