Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up
As American essayist and social critic H.L. Mencken wrote, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” To be free is to have the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without restraint. This type of freedom can be offered in many places whether it be home, school, or work. Safety is the condition of being protected from or unlikely to because risk, danger, or injury. Safety should be seen as an advantage to have because it’s never truly guaranteed. Most people claim they are proud of the freedoms their nations offer, though many people manifest the willingness to give up these freedoms to secure personal safety.
The world has become a scary place where evil runs rampant and bombings and shooting are becoming more common. The act of terrorism puts fear into the average person, and American essayist and social critic H.L. Mencken observes this by writing, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” That concession is certainly true, because in a contemporary society where terrorism reigns American citizens are willing to give up their freedom and rights for the feeling of security.
A hot-button topic in the world of U.S. politics today is the controversy over whether or not new gun laws need to be instituted to keep Americans safe. We are a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and one that sticks to traditional values. With this, comes a great deal of incongruity, which makes for a very sensitive debate on gun control. On one side of the spectrum, we have those who take a more liberal stance; while they do in fact support the second amendment, there is no doubt that the U.S. has evolved significantly since the Constitution was written, hence creating a need for strict gun laws. On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives argue that as soon as executive action inhibits the fundamental principles in which
Throughout this paper I will be challenging the arguments of Jeff McMahan’s paper Why Gun ‘Control Is Not Enough where he concludes that the only effective form of gun ‘control’ would be for The United States to make it illegal to shoot a gun of any type. He begins this argument by citing the “central pillar” of the argument for those who are anti-gun control is that when more individuals own guns, there is a mindset that the entire population is safer. With this logic, it can be inferred that citizens feeling unsafe in the current environment of their country are those seeking protection, one way being through the purchase and ownership of a firearm. Safety is imperative part of ensuring peace of mind, which then impact the peace of the
In 1784, Benjamin Franklin stated, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It is hard to say whether or not Benjamin Franklin is right due to the fact that we face different struggles in this day and age that people in Napoleon Bonaparte’s and Franklin’s era did not have to worry about. Our situations regarding security and freedom, especially after September 11, 2001, dramatically changed as citizens realized how often their everyday lives were jeopardized with each new discovery and invention concerning weapons or violence.
“How much freedom are Americans willing to give up for safety from terrorists?” We the people of the United States are willing to give away our natural born rights to be a safer nation. Millions of innocent lives were lost on 9-11-01. A problem not widely discussed in the United States much until September 11, 2001 the date of the attack from terrorist organizations on the world trade centers’ New York towers in New York City. The United States of America has not worried much about self-defense or in this case homeland security. Due to the actions on September 11th homeland security has been the main goal of many politicians and voters. Homeland security builds coalitions and partnerships, protects civil rights and civil liberties, and
With conservatives, liberals, and moderates continuously arguing about what is right for this country or what is morally or politically correct, we are forced to find a compromised middle-ground, because it can be the difference between life and death in many unfortunate cases. Conservatives believe that The Second Amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms and protect their individual, inalienable rights. They believe that there are too many gun control laws and that these laws do not keep criminals from obtaining guns. On the other hand, Liberals believe that The Second Amendment is only meant for federal/state government to have the right to bear arms, as well as militias, and that it is law enforcement and only law enforcement’s job to protect citizens and have guns. To Liberals, more guns equals more violence.
The authors accuse the fear to make it pro-gun. This is not freedom. The authors also criticize the media by encouraging fear. The article claims that the communities most affected by violence approve the control of the guns, and the areas least affected by violence often celebrated the guns as emblematic of freedom.
Safety and freedom are both essential components of society and many argue over which component holds the most desirability in modern civilization. Many, like H.L. Mencken, believe that humanity’s desire to be safe trumps the want to be free. This view may hold true for some but there are varying interpretations of what is means to be safe and have freedoms.
In the United States of America the right to bear arms gave birth to a phenomenon called the “gun culture,” the term coined in 1970 by a historian Richard Hofstadter, which describes America’s heritage and affection for weapons(1). Not only did gun culture become an inseparable part of American democracy, but also it is considered to be synonymous with independence and freedom, the most important values for American society. Even though the crime rate and murder rate in the U.S. is higher than in any other developed country, U.S. citizens oppose every attempt made to pass gun control legislation(2). However, it may sound like a paradox, but the crime level in the most liberal states, when it comes to gun ownership, is the lowest in the
With the arrival of President Donald Trump, a new mood is beginning to set in the White House that is substantially opposite from the liberal administration of President Obama. Notably, the topic of gun control will soon be brushed aside for the next four years, under Trump’s administration. Even though he had a strong support group from gun owners and leaders of the NRA during his campaign, many are still pushing for “common sense” gun safety laws. Advocate for gun control and author of Fight for common sense gun-safety policies far from over, Mark Kelly, touches on personal experiences that motivated him to speak about change in gun ownership. In contrast, author of Gun control negates Constitutional right to property, Jonathan Bain, gives