• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Public Safety vs. Personal Civil Liberties

DeletedUser34

Is it ok to take away civil liberties for the sake of public safety? Diggo and I were discussing this the other day and I was kinda wondering what everyone else says. Please note in this if you are American or not. Just because Americans have a vastly different view on these things than probably the rest of the world. It will allow for a round view knowing the environment of those who participate.

For my example, I would like to use shoes being removed at the airport as well as submitting yourself to the detectors. So many people cried foul at the government removing their freedoms in order to demand they go through the safety measures. I will use a result of the Colorado shooting in a different way, although I think eventually I'd like to get to the issue of Mental health care. But for now, many movies are saying no masks, no props, nothing. Is that fair, is it right? I remember the Rocky Horror Picture Show....mannnnnnn the memories. How far is to far in regards to removing civil liberties for the case of public safety. And finally, I will not get into a gun rights battle, but something has been stated that I found very enlightening. So many of our mass killings have been done by deranged people. Should mentally disabled people who can become a threat to society be treated and be isolated for public safety BEFORE they become a risk, or is the standard of defensive reaction because of civil liberties still the way to go?
 

DeletedUser

Is it ok to take away civil liberties for the sake of public safety?:. no it is not.
Because taking away civil liberties even minor ones is usually the first step in a larger scheme.
if you give the goverment space to bend and change our liberties they will do it again and again
take more and more untill inevitable the goverment has complete/absolute controll of this country.
and the power of the people would become tainted if not diminished
 

DeletedUser34

So you are saying it is ok that Charles Whitman, the Washington Sniper, Jared Loughner, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech Shootings, UT shootings, and the Oikus University shooting were perfectly acceptable for the sake of not getting rid of a few personal freedoms? (I purposely didn't include high school shootings because I think the bullying aspect makes that topic a bit cloudy, nor did I include Terrorist attacks such as the Murray building bombing) Rather than demand crazy people take their medicine, it is ok for them not to take their medicine because it is their right, despite the fact that there is a risk to society? Since when does your civil right give you the right to get me killed? Airport security has long been a bone of contention, since when do you as a single person get to put the rest of society in danger? Are you saying your right is worth more than my life? Are you saying America is safe even though we are as a rule a reactive country rather than a proactive country? And if it isn't the government, how about a committee of professionals and private citizens who are in charge of these decisions?
 

DeletedUser

What i am saying is their is no way to keep people safe if you limit our civil liberties or not.
if you take away guns they will use knifes.and i am a borderline scitzofrenic with violant outlashes.
it doesnt mean im gonna go out and kill somebody and from what i know people with severe disabilities like
me for example are usally more of a danger to ourselfs rather then others. sane people doing gangstabbings are more comman then mentally ill people attacking.so in they end it doesnt matter if you take away civil liberties or not if someone wants to harm or kill somebody they will find a way reguardless.and the less civil liberties we have the more power the goverment has.so either we controll our liberties and rights or somebody else will for us.and chances are we wont like they outcome
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34

And yet it is ok to take away a persons right to be in a gang? Really? Your logic makes no sense. And I was not referring to a TREATED mental person, but a person who refuses to be treated. A person who by all rights someone should have Forced them to be looked at, and treated. And more so, the Fort Hood shooting, nobody wanted to take the politically incorrect stand and call him out even though there was a ton of evidence that he was troubled.
 

DeletedUser

ok so let me start again.if you take away some of our cival rights what would it accomplish NOTHING.it would only go against us because now somebody else is deciding what we can and cant do.for example what would you suggest we do if were to give up cival liberties for public safety maby pass a "Freedom of Observation Act" give they goverment permission to tap our phone lines?.put cameras on every street corner? so that they can watch our every move and action. in the notion that they are helping protect the community.I myself am not one to give over my liberties to the goverment. that is how dictatorship comes into play they start with a simple law that takes away civil rights then it turns into something much bigger because now they ice is broken they goverment knows it can take away our civil liberties and will continue to do so. and what could we do about it all they power we did have when we had cival liberties we handed over to the goverment.to do with as they see fit
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser3

No matter how many liberties you remove, criminal behavior will occur. A prime example of this is Mexico.

So no, removal of civil liberties to give the "illusion" of greater security is exactly that, an illusion. It is mostly a political game to give the impression that things have been made safer, but safety is also an illusion. We are no safer now than before, the possibility of being blown up in a plane is just as unlikely now as it was 20 years ago. Security measures does not prevent the exceedingly rare instances of random violence. A recent shooting in a Colorado theatre serves as ample example to this, where all the gun laws didn't make a difference, as the assailant obtained all his weapons/ammo, legally. Mexico gives further example, where the only peeps who have and use guns are the criminals and the police, with the citizenry being restricted from owning guns.

Removal of civil liberties doesn't keep criminals in check, it keeps law abiding citizens in restraints.
 

DeletedUser

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson
 

DeletedUser

American

I agree with some of what Hero is saying, and with what Hellstromm is saying in that we can not ensure public safety through limiting civil liberties. No matter how hard we try, there will always be some ways that crimes slip by.

Take for instance the recent movie shooting. Afterwards, no masks were allowed and police were stationed at many theaters. Hellstromm hit the nail in the head when he said it gives people the illusion of security. People weren't scared to go to the theaters before this incident, and they won't be several weeks or even months from now. Only right now, when this news is still fresh in their memory, will people behave so protectively. Sure, the no masks and police thing may have calmed peoples' fears a bit, because they think that no such incident can occur or is likely to occur under such measures. But this is temporary, and a month from now masks will still be allowed and the police won't be there every single day. What then? I'm pretty sure everything will be back to normal.

You asked if it was fair and if it was right, and I say it was neither of those. A murder or massacre can happen anywhere at any time, but people just don't fear or worry about it due to the odds. Only when one recently happens does everyone become self-obsessed with safety and think that it'll happen to them the next time they step foot in a movie theater or university or whatever.

Finally, you (Domino) talked about possibly removing the mentally disabled people from society before they cause harm. I'm not sure that would have worked in any of the shooting cases. Yes, they were probably all or mostly all found to be psychotic or abnormal in terms of mental/emotional condition, but didn't they find that out after the shooting happened and they examined them? I don't know how these people could have been screened beforehand unless we screen every person in the U.S. They always talk about the missed warning signs and stuff, so wouldn't something like this be almost impossible to do? I'm just theorizing, since I don't know the history of every single person behind a shooting or massacre, but it seems that you know of some cases where something like this could have worked, and so could you perhaps elaborate on why you found it enlightening?
 

DeletedUser34

well considering all of this.....how is it chosen which civil liberties to ignore, and which to force feed? I mean for example...I own a house, I don't want to rent it to a specific person or type of people...the law says I have to. Is that not a form of taking away my civil liberties?
 

DeletedUser

you dont have to rent apartments out to any specific person and i believe it is a civil right for every person reguardless of religion creed or color to have the same opportunities as everyone else.lol the law your speaking of is for equal opportunity meaning blacks have the same rights as whites and whites as blacks.

- - - Updated - - -

that doesnt mean you cant refuse somebody for having a certain skin color or religion it just means dont say your doing it because of their religion or skin color.so really its just an anti segregation law

besides i am pretty sure that you can reject anybody you want for any reason. you just cant have a big Whites Only
sign out front
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34

ummm it isn't limited to blacks, and yes it is illegal....so answer my question please
Please understand this is an example, and I am in no way gay bashing here...
But if I felt strongly against a soldier (which there is a case going right now) and or a gay couple, I have to rent to them...I can't use those two things as a reason to deny them. Isn't that stepping on my civil rights as a land owner on my property?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

just say no thats all you need to do. you dont need to give a reason.that is our civil rights you have the right to remain silent and just say no.lol I am pretty sure its not a problum to denie people long as you or whoever dont have a no Gays allowed sign hanging out front.so no it is not against our cival liberties because reguardless religion creed color or sex we have the right to say no without a reason.just dont go gaybashing because that would be against the law
------------
and if we were allowed to discriminate people legally then we would be allowed to brand them as well with yellow ribbions.and we all know how that ended up
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

yea getting sued it doesnt mnean he won the lawsuit. i have seen people get sued for 100million dollars for spilling coffeeor because nike shoes didnt skulpt their Abs like the commercial suggested it might.so show me a link were he won the lawsuit please.because that means nothing. i could file BS lawsuits to does that mean im gonna win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34

*sigh*
ok, how about this


B. Protected classes

Fair housing laws protect people who are discriminated against because they are perceived as different from, or more difficult tenants than, the majority population. Fair housing laws identify certain groups of people for this protection. These groups are called "protected classes." The protected classes include: race, color, national origin, religion, gender, family status, children, sexual orientation, gender identity and spousal affiliation.

7. Sexual orientation

The New Mexico Human Rights Act and some local laws prohibit landlords from refusing to rent or treating tenants differently based upon their sexual orientation ( being gay, lesbian, bisexual or straight). Federal fair housing law does not provide protection based on sexual orientation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

well it doesnt change the fact they have to prove you were dicriminating them beyond a reasonable doubt.so as i said long as you aarnt gay bashing or directly discriminating people your in the clear.
and these laws were made and are mainly used to prevent what i call the "yellow ribbon effect".
so their is no law saying you have to give they apartment to someone if they are gay is their? no their isnt
so in they end you have the right to denie anybody for any reason.and good luck getting a lawsuit through without some concrete evidence proving you are a racist/discriminater because for this law to work they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are racist.and if they cant then to bad go find another apartment
 

DeletedUser34

quit muddying the waters! It is still a civil right being removed. The only way to get around it is to lie and cheat. So THAT BEING SAID...what is the difference in that and saying a mental health patient has to legally be treated, and can not go off their meds, or a family who suspects a person is mental has to have them treated?
 

DeletedUser

Because i have a pretty severe disorder as i have stated.and i refuse treatment and if they option was taken out of my hands. i would be in jail or prison right now Indefinatally no doubt.and they goverment has no right to tell me how to live because i love talking to my voices and embraceing my delusions I have heard voices since i was 14
now i am 20 years old and to be honest i wouldnt know how to live without them.
and usually medications make me more violent to the point were i black out so if a law was passed that made people like me take meds chances are higher that i would go on a killing spree and i just might because in my experience medications made me more violent and my voices have a stronger grip on my brain so i believe that it should be optional because sometimes treament is worse then just leaving it alone.and as far as i know their is no guaranteed cure for what i have but when the day comes that their is a guarentee ill go get fixed untill then i have to live with the fact that treatments/medications make me more violent and dilusional
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34

besides crossing some line somewhere, you answer does not address the question with any real validity. I don't care if you are disabled.....What makes your freedom any different from mine? ANNNNND per your logic, is it not my right with the constitution to not be at risk by you? Does not the constitution say We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.l

So again I ask, who is more important? The public as a whole, or a single person? AND who decides one set of people are more important than another. And why guidelines are used when deciding to limit one set of peoples civil liberties, but encouraging others?
 
Top