Timothy Benton | Oct 18, 2018 | 1
When Does The Price Of Safety And Security Cost Too Much?
I have heard the news in the last week following this horrific shooting that something has to be done, the cameras pan to these kids parading in front of their lens, parroting the script they give them to say, then when you dare to question it the howls of Indignation rise up to the heavens, with screams of, “How dare you to question the Pain of these Children.” We are scolded, told the price of safety should force us to give up all, but is this hysteria a good thing? I am still left with the question, “When does the price of our security and safety cost too much?“
We have seen multiple shootings now in schools; each one sends the nation into a collective shudder as we mourn another senseless slaughter. People come together, asking, “What can be done?” Others yell that it is time to take away our rights, if these rights are killing these children then it is time to do away with them. But I have to ask, we have had these same rights for over 200 years, so what has changed over the years to suddenly in the last 25 years to make this so common? I went over this in Why Are Their Suddenly So Many Shootings, do not feel a need to do so again, just suffice it to say that there is so much that is wrong, the guns are not the symptom, they are a tool that is being used to act out the result of this, nothing more. But we still have to ask, “When does the price of our security and safety cost too much?“
We can ban the bump stocks; I have no problem with these, why do you need a highly inaccurate gun that shoots out like an automatic weapon? But does it stop here? What happens next time, do we next ban the right of anyone under 21 to purchase an automatic weapon? Do we do this for everyone? Then what is demanded the next time? When does the price of our security and safety cost too much?
The next time people will once more say it is the guns, the 2nd amendment is outdated, but once more, if this is the case then why weren’t there multiple attacks like this in the 1700’s, could it be they had no muskets any longer? They got rid of those before the civil war, still weren’t any of these slaughters against soft targets, so then why? Could it be the advent of modern rifles and guns? They have been around since the early 1900’s, why wasn’t there then more attacks like we have seen over the last 25 years, instead there was no mass slaughters of this nature for 90 years, so what changed?
As I had discussed in the article mentioned above, the thing that has changed is our morals, our reaction to responsibility, teaching our kids to care for each other, answer for their actions, this is what is changing, then we wonder when we took faith from them, took their concept of absolute right and wrong values, teaching the gold rule, this started to happen. Did it happen right away? Of course not, it happened over generations, each losing more and more of what made this nation and society not do this type of random violence. But even more, instead of blaming the act on the person, now we have turned from that to blaming it on tools, and you wonder why it is getting worse.
I have said, if you take away the guns, someone that has an intent to kill, they will do so with another tool. We had in 2014 a student attack stabbing and slashing 21 students (funny how not a mention of this on international news, nor were there any calls to remove the knives). This received little or no press, and why? There were no guns involved; they could not push the leftist agenda the liberal media is so intent on, this was not convenient to their narrative.
The fact that far more people are killed by knives then guns also seems to be ignored, I have yet to hear from one of the talking heads on the liberal news or a leftist politician that we need to do something about knives, why is that? Once more, it is not convenient to their narrative. In 2014 5 times more people were killed by knives than guns, why isn’t there a call to ban knives? I would love to give later dates, but for some odd reason when the numbers were not convenient to the narrative Obama had the FBI stop reporting on instrument or tool used in the murder, it was not supportive of their attempts to go after guns.
So we come back to the question at hand, “When does the price of our security and safety cost too much?” When do we instead of allowing the government and the left try to take away our constitutional rights look instead of ways to protect both the kids and the rights? Do we give in and give up more each time something like this happens? Or do we look at why schools, theaters, concerts are the favored targets of these psychotic killers? Why is it that the schools seem to be the most common place hit? The reason for this is simple, it is a soft target, just like the Church was in Texas, although by what I have seen in Texas the next time this is tried he may find half the congregation shooting back, and good for them.
We should look at why these places are hit, go overseas to where we have schools off of large bases, what is the first thing you notice? These places aren’t soft targets; they have armed security, secure entrances, the children are taken to and from the schools in a bus with armed people on the buses. Now, do we need to do all of this here? Not now, I have yet to see someone attack a bus, and pray we never do, But they have not seen anyone attack a bus yet either, but they wanted to make sure they were secure before someone got this idea in their head, just like the schools, these schools aren’t attacked, they are fortified to let anyone know that wanted to try to this know that any such attempt would result in most of the attackers losing their life and most likely failing. Since these attackers overseas and here are cowards, they don’t want to attack a place where people will bring mass firepower to defend the place. Thus there are no attacks.
I have to ask, how hard would it be rather than blame the weapons and ignoring the fact that the places hit are soft targets to make them more secure? Have all doors secured with a safe and secure area that all are funneled into once school starts, this place should have a metal detector and a secure entrance, to hold someone suspicious until authorities can arrive? I think the federal government should mandate this. Otherwise, everyone is going to be screaming that doesn’t have kids that their tax money is going into this (funny how they demanded the best when their kids were in school, now think they should have to pay nothing when they are done.) After this is done, THEN and only THEN should we be talking about what else we should do. My wife says that we are too quick to talk and to slow to act, this should apply to this in so many ways, we need to do something now, then sit down and talk about what else should be done.
We have heard talk for the last 25 years of what is going to be done, there has been session’s of Congress, people have marched, protested, parents and siblings have cried over losses, and nothing has ever been done. Before we sit down and talk about what else we need to do, we need to do something now, securing every school in the nation is the first thing that should be done. But then. When does the price of our security and safety cost too much?
That is what we need to look at next. The government is never in the way of giving rights; it only wants to take them away. There will be excuses, as we see now with what went on, the government and their obvious agents like the press, they are in place to use any excuse to take these rights away from us, we need to at all times be guarded against them. For every right they demand gets stripped way you have to remember this is this time, what will they ask for next? The demands will never stop until they achieve what they are after, stripping the rights granted by the second amendment. I don’t care how small the demands are; we have to at all times ask, “When does the price of our security and safety cost too much?
I know I am beating this into this subject, but there is a reason, take a look at their moves to get rid of religion, did they step in one day and make the nation what it is now? No, they first stripped away the right to pray to start the day in school, then they went after any discussion or reading of the Bible, then they said that teachers could not mention G-d in any way, that is a violation of the separation of church and state, then went after public displays they saw as a sign or religious affiliation, like the nativity’s place in parks or outside of federal buildings at Christmas, now they are going even after little children they catch praying privately to themselves. If we allow this with guns, they will one day succeed in stripping this right away from us, or they may let us keep guns, just make the sale of ammunition illegal. I ask again, “When does the price of our security and safety cost too much?”
So you may ask, “What then am I advocating?” As stated earlier, before we do anything dealing with access to weapons, we need to make sure that the sites being hit are secure. Next, we need to look at any infringement on any right as exactly what it is; it is a move to strip our rights in the name of safety, we need to guard this like a jealous lover, protecting these rights at all cost. But with this being stated there is plenty we can still do; for example, we need to make sure laws on the books are enforced, we already have in law that background checks are to be done, we need to make sure all gun sales have this done with them, unless you should not have possession of a weapon, this is not infringing on any of your rights.
We need to put in place mandatory psych checks, some but not all of the mass shootings would have been stopped this way, but one has to ask, what is the red line that can’t be crossed? If there is a law put in place to have this, we need it defined in a way that it can’t move, otherwise in the future who thinks a judge will not say that anyone with conservative, religious, or thinks a certain way is not mentally stable enough to possess a gun. And please don’t tell me they will not do that, we have seen gross overreach by judges, they have acted in a way to subvert the constitution, not support it. We need this to be defined in a way it can’t waiver as we see with the freedom of speech, and even that is under attack from some quarters now.
And we need to look at the long game, if we say that psych checks should be mandatory for the right to purchase a gun, are we next going to put an age limit? And what about soldiers that have fought in wars to protect this nation and us, do we say because some of them have PTSD they now should not have any access to weapons, throw them all in one classification? The left and press wish to make this look easy, but it isn’t, the only way to stop shootings is to have a complete sweep and take every gun, this is what many of them propose. I must add that this is the most confusing push from the left I see; after you have spent the last eight years telling me that cops are bad, we need to attack them if they dare defend themselves, why would you then want only them armed? The last year I have heard nothing but talk of insurrection, how the government is untrustworthy, so now you want to tell me we need to make sure only the government is armed? Makes no sense.
In the end, I have to ask, “When does the price of our security and safety cost too much?” How much of our rights are we willing to give up to give a sense of security? I finish this with wise words from our founders:
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…..”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
While this argument is dealing with guns, it is also dealing with so much more, in the words of Ben Franklin:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”