Trading Liberty for Security?

This meme has been floating around for a while now. Most recently I saw it "liked"  by someone who "shared" it from someone . . .  who shared it from The Tea Party's facebook page.

The man pictured is indeed Benjamin Franklin, but he is misquoted.

Franklin's actual words were something more like this: 

"They who can give up essential Liberty, to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.", though there are several variations recorded.


By using the words of Franklin,in the context of the current gun control debate, The Tea Party seems to be suggesting  that those who are calling for gun control measures are willing to make a bad trade that will later be regretted, that being afraid of more gun deaths, they are willing to surrender liberty in exchange for security. Moreover, this sense of security they seek would be false because in the long run allowing government regulation of guns and ammunition will result in tyranny and then as a society we will have neither liberty nor security.

But I remember this same quote being used back when the Bush administration was implementing lots of security measures -- at a break neck speed, with some expressing concern that he was overstepping the bounds of executive power -- - designed, allegedly, to protect our society from further attacks by terrorists. Some at that time were worried about the wisdom of trading personal liberty for the promise of greater security.

Take a look at what one conservative publication had to say back in 2006: 

"The point is that situations to preserve public safety are seen as worthy of curtailing certain individual rights, contrary to what our loyal dissenters tell us. The founders recognized this, which is nothing more than observing the common sense principle that the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/meyer/060911

Quoting the words of our Founding Fathers is like quoting the Bible. Taken out of context and manipulated, the words of both can be made to mean almost anything, whatever suits the purpose at hand. 

Our society is searching now for a solution to a problem that everyone agrees is important. No one on either side of the gun control debate believes that it is good and right for unarmed civilians to be murdered. And no one on either side of the debate believes it would be good if the government had lots of guns and no civilians had any. All agree that we need to do a better job of securing public safety.

We need to treat the discussion with due respect and stop all the posturing and propaganda. One thing both sides have in common is fear -- the fear of losing something dear and precious. 

Because we are afraid and the problem is complex and there is no obvious automatic fix, we run the risk of turning our fear upon one another and mistaking each other for the enemy.

We can work toward a solution only when we become good faith listeners and good faith speakers.