Friday, February 18, 2011

Safety at the cost of Liberty? No thanks!

Over at Baldr's blog, "A New Trajectory," I posted a comment in regards to (Child Access Prevention) laws for firearms. I suggested that such laws may save lives, asked if there were other alternatives that didn't involve infringing on our liberties and overriding our judgement. The the response was:
Are CAP laws overriding your judgement as a parent? Maybe, but their previsions tend to match what responsible gun owners do already. But if a few people are inconvenienced for the sake of the greater good, I am willing to support it.
- Baldr Odinson
He also stated he wasn't aware where CAP laws had ever cost any lives (you can read the rest of the discussion here).

Here is my response:

@Baldr: A primary example of CAP laws being directly responsible for 2 deaths:

There's no telling how many other people have died or become victims of other violent crime because laws required them to keep their firearms locked and unloaded, because such things are hard to count.

I will admit that this type of law may actually save more lives than it costs, but lives aren't the only thing to measure. What about the cost to our liberty, and the punishment by the law of innocent people guilty of nothing more than using their own judgement in violation of the law?

I do not think the "greater good" is EVER a reason to infringe on our rights. Such a "nanny state" mentality is wrong in my opinion by depriving a free people of their essential liberties.

The Declaration of Independence gives a clear, simple description of the purpose of government - The job of government is to protect our individual, unalienable rights by ensuring justice for those whose rights are harmed by punishing those that infringe upon the rights of others. Not to protect us from ourselves or ensure the "common good" at the price of our liberties. I doubt you will find ANY writings or speeches of ANY of the founding fathers that supports such an inherently flawed concept, and in fact will find many quotes to the contrary:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin.

If you want a nanny state to protect us from ourselves, I wish you and your like-minded comrades would go find some other country that doesn't care about individual rights to ruin, instead of continuing to try and gain public support in THIS country for your twisted ideas of what constitutes the "public good."

Some of us would rather live in the animated contest of freedom with all it's inherent chaos and protected liberties than a coddled life subject to overly-restrictive laws that make innocent people into criminals for victimless crimes like CAP laws do.

Some like yourself, may be willing to give up their liberty for a little perceived safety. I, and many others, are not.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? As always, all comments are welcome!



  1. For an anecdotal story - I look within my own loved ones.

    This was a hard argument with some of my family. They understand that I collect and shoot - but want to make sure that all the guns are "locked up" whenever the children are around.

    Obviously, leaving a fully loaded firearm in the reach of ANY untrained person is absolutely unacceptable -- but in my house, I've trained and worked with my children to recognize the safe way to handle firearms; I've removed some of the mystery of "the gun".

    The problem is, not everyone teaches their children the same way. I've tried to reach out to my immediate family, friends and neighbors to teach their children as well -- but I'm left with securing any weapons whenever the "untrained" are present in my house. This also includes my own childrens' curious friends.

    I follow a simple rule - unless I'm in direct control of a firearm -- it is secured against the "untrained". I'm in direct control of my carry piece when it's on my hip -- but the home shotgun (loaded) is always kept in a locked closet. The remainder of the collection always resides in the safe.

  2. Great reply Orrygunner. Nicely worded. Can't say much more.

    Cook (down the river from you)

  3. I just noticed that the person you were having a conversation with, Baldr Odinson, has son similarities to Norse mythology characters. Baldar was a great warrior who slayed Fafnir the feared dragon. Odin was the great wizard who looked after Baldar and told him how to defeat Fafnir. Just sayin'...


All comments are automatically approved. I will only censor comments in extreme situations, such as spam, extremely offensive language or personal insults.

If you post anonymously, I would appreciate some sort of name to attribute to you. I dislike calling people "Anonymous."