Gingrich Says Americans ‘Will Give Up All Their Liberties’ For Safety

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

From GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3176391&mesg_id=3176391

David

[tularetom]

1. Dude what's yer point?

I think most of 'em actually would do that.

I hate to agree with anything that piece a shit says but sadly I believe he is correct here.

You might not do it, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, nor would a lot of others here on DU but the majority of americans are scared shitless and they'd submit to almost anything if it made them feel a little bit safer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Just thought some of the people here might be interested in the responses,

of some of the other people here who were posting about this topic. Other than that I don't have a point.

David

[iverglas]

7. did you then

Well, I'm still wondering when you people are going to rebel against speed limits.


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


For pity's sake, that statement is the essence of the entire question of a society (apart from Franklin's opinion about who deserves what, which is neither here nor there).

What liberty is *essential*, and what safety is merely *little and temporary*?

All matters of opinion. And opinions will vary depending on where someone happens to be sitting at the time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. I guess we could just count the ones in the Constitution.

[gorfle]

16. What is an essential liberty?

Well, I'm still wondering when you people are going to rebel against speed limits.


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


For pity's sake, that statement is the essence of the entire question of a society (apart from Franklin's opinion about who deserves what, which is neither here nor there).

What liberty is *essential*, and what safety is merely *little and temporary*?

All matters of opinion. And opinions will vary depending on where someone happens to be sitting at the time.

You are exactly right - it becomes a debate over what liberty is essential, and what safety is little and temporary.

The ability to resist tyranny by force of arms is the one liberty capable of securing any and all other liberties. Thus, in my view, it is the most essential of all liberties. I further submit that any safety that is gained by sacrificing that most essential of liberties is bound to be found both temporary and little in the end.

[iverglas]

17. funny

The ability to resist tyranny by force of arms is the one liberty capable of securing any and all other liberties.

The ability to impose tyranny by force of arms -- or hell, just put a bullet hole in somebody's head -- is the one liberty capable of squashing any and all other liberties. And safeties. And, oh, life.


I further submit that any safety that is gained by sacrificing that most essential of liberties is bound to be found both temporary and little in the end.

Let me know when we get to "the end", will you?

Is that kinda like an alcoholic "hitting bottom"? I hit bottom last week ... no, that wasn't it, I really hit bottom last night ... no, looks like I'm heading for bottom tonight ...

The "end" that we'll be waiting for as the gun guys sit with their fingers on their triggers, while all around them all those other liberties disappear. Gotta wait for the end. Just gotta sit here and wait til we hit the end. Are we at the end yet? Nope, looks like there's some liberty left they haven't got yet. Gotta wait til it goes. Thought we'd hit the end when they did that thang last week, but nope, the train's still moving and I can still see a bit of liberty on the track up ahead, so we can't be there yet ...

Some people actually might quit drinking now, never mind waiting for the bottom to magically appear. And some people might not actually wait for the end before doing something to keep the train from pulling into that station.

[gorfle]

18. They tyranny of the indivual vs the group.

The ability to impose tyranny by force of arms -- or hell, just put a bullet hole in somebody's head -- is the one liberty capable of squashing any and all other liberties. And safeties. And, oh, life.

One person committing a crime against one, two, or a few dozen people does not a tyranny, nor a tyrant, make.

Let me know when we get to "the end", will you?

Well this gets back to that question I asked you a couple of weeks ago that you never answered:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x164917#165171

"So is it your position, then, that the time for armed rebellion will never be upon us?"

Is it your position that we will never get to "the end"?

[gorfle]

19. And again, crickets chirp. n/t.

.

[iverglas]

20. I'm sorry; was there something here

that I was supposed to reply to?

If I could find something there that I could make head or tail of, I might give it a shot.



"So is it your position, then, that the time for armed rebellion will never be upon us?"

There was a pre-emptive answer to that one:

I'm not the one indulging in daydreams that I can only describe as ... well, let's just say "unsavoury", for the multiple known reasons.

But sure. It's my position that the time for armed rebellion will never be upon you. I qualify my reply by saying something along the lines of unless a cataclysmic event causes the sky to turn dark for 40 years and 40 days, and the cattle drop like flies and the wheat fields turn parched, and a mighty dictator riseth up and taketh away all the people's daughters so that they may have no offspring ...



Now what the hell is this "end" you're nattering about ...


The ability to resist tyranny by force of arms is the one liberty capable of securing any and all other liberties. Thus, in my view, it is the most essential of all liberties. I further submit that any safety that is gained by sacrificing that most essential of liberties is bound to be found both temporary and little in the end.

Let me know when we get to "the end", will you?

And now: Is it your position that we will never get to "the end"?

Oh, fine.

Lather, rinse, repeat.



But what on earth any of this head to do with its rubrid:

They tyranny of the indivual vs the group.

I wouldn't know.

[gorfle]

21. Well usually...

I'm sorry; was there something here that I was supposed to reply to?

Usually direct questions are a cue that a reply is desired.

But sure. It's my position that the time for armed rebellion will never be upon you.

Our founding fathers certainly did not share your optimism. Our founding fathers did not trust a strong centralized government for fear such power would corrupt it and allow it to oppress its people. They lived through a time where armed rebellion was upon them.

Since recorded history is full of examples where armed rebellion was upon people, and indeed it is happening in the world right now today, what makes you so certain that it never will again be upon us?

I qualify my reply by saying something along the lines of unless a cataclysmic event causes the sky to turn dark for 40 years and 40 days, and the cattle drop like flies and the wheat fields turn parched, and a mighty dictator riseth up and taketh away all the people's daughters so that they may have no offspring ...

I know you are trying to be snide by painting an extreme, but one needs look no further than Hurricane Katrina to see how loosely knit the fabric of our civilization really is. Personally I believe I will require firearms for protection during civil unrest long before they will be required for protection from tyranny. I suspect that within my lifetime we will see a major terrorist attack involving a nuclear or biological weapon in a major population center, and this may very well result in people fleeing all major population centers - especially if the terrorists are smart after they pull off their attack and call up CNN and tell them they have bombs in other major cities, true or not.

So while you are making light of a cataclysmic event scenario frankly I think that scenarios of civil chaos are more likely than scenarios of tyranny, at least today.

Now what the hell is this "end" you're nattering about ...

Obviously, the "end" I am talking about is the end of representational government - tyranny.

But what on earth any of this head to do with its rubrid:

They tyranny of the indivual vs the group.

I wouldn't know.

Sorry for my typos. I'll try to explain.

I said: "The ability to resist tyranny by force of arms is the one liberty capable of securing any and all other liberties."

You said: "The ability to impose tyranny by force of arms -- or hell, just put a bullet hole in somebody's head -- is the one liberty capable of squashing any and all other liberties. And safeties. And, oh, life.

To which I said: "One person committing a crime against one, two, or a few dozen people does not a tyranny, nor a tyrant, make. "

You seemed to be making the comparison of a single person committing a murder equivalent to the oppression of a society by a tyrannical government, by labeling his actions, or at least comparing them to, a "tyranny". Hence my choice of poorly-spelled title, "The tyranny of the individual vs. the group."

[SteveM]

13. I appreciate your views, but there is that matter of energy...

Even sitting on your ass being afraid (something of a cry-on-T.V. art form) takes energy. And it do get boring, even to the practitioners. Stuff and celebrity have their limits.

Envisioning rebellion is tricky, now. In "my day" you could throw it up on the screen: general strike, daily demonstrations, institutional shut-down, strikes, theater, even the spotty violence which will occur. But what does the average "people-of-the-thumb" see? Once someone has a eureka moment with .com and finally uses it as core-part of rebellion, then something can light off. This .com is too new, though Obama is said to have such a huge network of "activists" on some level, that the Dems, DNC & maybe Obama himself is afraid of it. One thing is becoming clearer: community (even modern forms of it) has taken a dive in this country. We had the Top 40, we had the Big 3 news. Crappy as they were, where, now, is the cutting edge of mass community, which confers legitimacy, which is necessary for rebellion? Do we do without?

"If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them." -- Basuto proverb as cited in Something of Value, Robert Ruark, 1955, Doubleday, N.Y.

Doesn't Gingrich remind you of someone spoiling for a fight in an empty barroom?

[Deja Q]

2. What is "safety"?

[Fearless]

3. I believe the quote by Benjamin Franklin is helpful.

See it below in my tagline.

[Juche]

5. Was he wearing a flag pin though

:sarcasm:

[Double T]

6. I'm with Franklin and gingrich is a wannabe dictator.

[Lint Head]

8. Fuck that lying son of a bitch.

[benEzra]

9. Speak for yourself, Grinch.

I'll keep my liberties, thanks...

[scarface2004]

11. i won't!!

eff yu yu emm eff!!

[bossy22]

12. ahh newt

[WWFZD]

14. A right wing authoritarian? no way,

Right wing garbage spewed from the slappy pie-hole of a right winger.
1st, 2nd, 4th Amendment, it's all relative, after all, we're talking safety here. Think of the children! I'm afraid to go the bathroom in the dark, where's my nightlight.

However this is curious coming from Newton, Nutella, Nutria, whatever his name is. I don't like this dude, I don't trust him, but one thing I never doubted was his intelligence. This is analogous to Obama stating that he really believes the 2A to be an anachronism and that no one today has the right to own a handgun, like the Joyce foundation believes.

In general, these people are way too smart to announce their true intentions for all to quote. Somethings not adding up.

[old mark]

15. I'd rather just give up Neut...

He is such a fat little crook - I am amazed that anyone pays any attention to the SOB anymore.

mark