Safety and the Constitution

R

Rich Lucibella

Staff
There's been much discussion on TFL of late regarding necessary police powers to ensure our "safety". Seat belt laws, "papers please" roadblocks, RealID, RFID, drug busts and the like.

Just for kicks I decided to trace the concept that it's the government's job to keep us all safe from ourselves. Unfortunately, it is evidently a rather modern contrivance. To wit:

- The Bill of Rights never mentions the word "safety"; not once; nowhere.

- The Declaration of Independence mentions the word "safety" once....just once....and that in connection with the inalienable right of the People to reject oppression, for their own safety.

- The Constitution of the United States uses the word "safety" once....just once....and this in context of "invasion" or "rebellion".

In fact, it would appear that the founding concepts of this Nation stand in pretty stark contrast to this growing need for "safety":
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- These are each endeavors which, if pursued with passion, are inherently dangerous.

Hardly a scholarly treatise; hardly anything new to anyone at TFL.
Just thought we could all use a reminder of what sovereign citizens should be focused on.

The "safety" dodge is just that. It cannot be employed without a spoken or unspoken preamble of apology for ignoring or trampling the precepts on which this Republic was founded. "Safety" is never a reason; it is only an excuse.
Rich
 
I choose freedom, and being responsible for my own safety. I have common sense, God given, and put to use in everything I do.

For those who do not have such attributes, here's your Darwin Award.

The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally kill themselves in really stupid ways. Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously.
 
No, I can very well be safe and free.

I can be free in that I am not forced to wear a seat belt, and I can be safe in that I choose to anyways.

I can be free in that I may own firearms, and I may be safe in that I choose to only use them at a firing range.

I can be free in that I can have a cigarette when I want, but I can be safe by shoosing to quit.






I want to be safe, but I dont want laws telling me HOW i HAVE to be safe
 
I side with Franklin - "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
If one equates the word "safety" to "security," the results are quite different.

If this point significantly alters the focus of this thread, I apologize, please disregard this post. :)

-Dave
 
Dave-
Security?.....fell right into the trap, didn't you? :D

"Security" is mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence....just once: again in context of the Peoples' Right to throw off tyranny to provide for their future security.

"Security" is mentioned once in the Bill of Rights....just once: in the Second Amendment; concerns for "security" were used to explain the inalienable right of the people to bear arms.

"Security" is mentioned nowhere else in the Constitution.


Seems the founders were just too interested in "freedom".
Rich
 
If giving up some rights makes us a little safer, then the necessary end of that logic is that giving up all our rights makes us totally safe.

Life is dangerous. Get over it. I want the government to neither be my mommy (blue-staters), nor my daddy (red-staters). I want government to leave me the hell alone and live my life without some bureaucrat butting in and trying to improve it for me.
 
Seems the founders were just too interested in "freedom".
Click to expand...
unfortunately, it seems, most americans are not

if they were, this would have not even begun

to worried about the 'security' of the next paycheck

what caused this paradigm shift? to busy watching TV, they are
 
That is the reason that most here think that I either need to get help or just totally off my rocker.

I don't subsribe to the general good of anyone, yet I know that I'm responsible for my behavior if it goes against the freedoms of another.

And, if being allowed to be totally free, I end up being a winner of the Darwin Award, then that is my problem. As long as I do something stupid by myself (which is when I do such things), all I have to be responsible for is my own maiming or death. And I pay, out of pocket for my health insurence, I pay for long care assistance, and my grave, casket, and memorial is already paid for so there is no money coming out of tax payers pockets. This is the way it should be.

I know that many here think as me as one of the most stupid people on earth. To do stupid things, just to show that a simple inch separates you from being a felon, and being law abiding and free, should have woken up some here and elsewhere. To show how absurd the laws are and that only an inch separates you from years in jail and no gun ownership and being able to have the same, an inch later.

Like I said, you can't regulate stupidity, you can't and will never be able to do so. The same goes with criminals, you're not ever going to regulate it, and lastly, you can't regulate safety, because this is the real world and safety will never be obtained. And regulating people like me (trying to do so), criminals, and others by the laws that are created, does nothing but ensure that law abiding people, don't and can't have the means to ensure your own safety.

Think about that. No matter the laws, no matter what laws they come up with, it's not going to stop anyone, me, criminals, the insane, from owning or the ability to get, or worse yet, to make, guns.

Wayne

*over the top maybe? Just presenting the truth here, that what most to all believe in, doesn't work, won't work, and can never work without more and more government interference that will only work, maybe, if we go to a complete police state and total control of the government (federal).
 
Comfort versus Responsibility

The vast majority of homo sapiens are sheepeople, willing to give up responsibility and accept some predation for effortless comfort. Occassionally the sheepeople can be stampeded in the right direction by the sheepdogpeople. Most of the time the sheepeople resent the sheepdogpeople because they mistake them for annoying wolfpeople, never realizing real wolfpeople are not annoying but predatory and often poseing as very charming sheepeople.

Freedom and liberty are precious, perishable aberations. History indicates despotism is the norm. Preserving freedom and liberty is like juggling balls. If you throw the balls too far or too little in one direction, equilibrium is destroyed, and gravity causes the anarchy of bouncing followed by the despotism of immobility. I hope our society has the endurace to keep juggling indefinitely. I am worried.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."
 
Last edited:
Safety, security and service. I am responsible for my own safety. I have a state license for a right to security. Why I pay the state for my right I will never know. I pay gladly for services. Trashstinks, I like smooth roads and I appreciate health standards. I fail to see why there are so many administrative agencies though.
 
All I care about is that its no ones repsonsibility but my own to take care of myself.

Where this "entitlement" mentality comes from beats me. Folks, I hate to say it, but you ARE NOT entitled to "free" perscriptions, health care, money, food, etc.

That is what it comes down to, people are getting lazy. They don't want to, or realize that working hard has great rewards.
 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="safety+of+the+people"+site:constitution.org&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="personal+safety"+site:constitution.org&btnG=Search

Founding-era quotes make it clear, to me at least, that the founders were more interested in the proper formulation of government and maximization of liberties rather than concerned with their safety. Safety is quite a vague term, as you point out.

Then there's the whole fiasco regarding the proposition that the constitution is not a suicide pact.
 
No, I can very well be safe and free.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. Because by being free, you are free to make the choices necessary to keep you free.

What we are talking more about, is that while you can be free and safe, you can also be free and make stupid decisions, thereby making youself not safe. Some people realize that they cannot make their own decisions on being safe, so they decide the government should decide for them. When the government gets involved, it cannot provide both. It can either guarantee you that you are free to make your own decisions, or it can guarantee you that it will keep you safe by making those decision for you, and everyone else. In that way, no one is free. Others have decided that people telling them how to live a safe life is more important than me being able to make my own decision about how to live a safe life.
 
Seems the founders were just too interested in "freedom".
Click to expand...
... a word which appears only once in the BoR and not at all in the Constitution or DoI and in the context of words, not actions.

"Free" appears more often (4 times in the Declaration, once in the Constitution and twice in the BoR) but only once in the Declaration does it use the word to refer to a free people as opposed to those who live in tyranny. In the constitution, it refers to those who are not slaves and in the BoR it refers once to free exercise of religion and once to the freedom of the state.

Not that I disagree with your underlying point Rich, but I don't see the frequency count of a given word to be indicative of much.

Anyhow, I doubt people that believe in legislating your behavior for your own safety will be swayed by the thoughts of the Founders.
 
Ben-
Frequency doesn't count? Well let's see.
Safety is mentioned twice in these three documents....and only once in context of Government role.
Security is mentioned twice in these three documents; and never in context of government role.

As you point out, Free and Freedom are mentioned eight times.
As to context, as you point out, there are multiple references to a "Free Society", none to a "Safe Society" (except in context of the Second Amendment).

I submit that frequency most certainly DOES count.
Rich
 
I do not trust the state with my or my family's safety. That is my responsibility.
To me, it really does not matter to me how many times safety is mentioned in a document. If it was addressed in every paragraph I would still feel the same. For me, personal responsibility for one's own safety and one's children's safety is a truth, not some right, privilege, or teaching of the state.
Living itself is dangerous. Death is safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top