Sacrificing liberty to gain security is the wrong choice

David L. Keyston /


Published Jan 31, 2013 at 04:00AM / Updated Nov 19, 2013 at 12:31AM

Our Oregon sheriffs are making the most intelligent and American decision in supporting our Second Amendment privileges under the Constitution by telling Washington that they will not allow any federal laws to undermine our constitutional rights, thus our sheriffs will not enforce unjust laws. Bravo!

By imposing executive orders in this case of “gun control,” the president is enacting a dictatorial power grab, contravening the rule of law. This plainly circumvents due process — through Congress, where the president knows he may not garner enough votes — and the rule of law.

Historical precedent (Germany just prior to World War II) shows the cogent danger when one assumes power not delegated by the rule of law or when the public relinquishes their rights — in this case, our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Every single American is beside themselves with the grief of the tragedies seen in recent years. I am in the alternative healing profession. I abhor violence of any kind, other than for defense. However, as a student of history, understanding that this country has the most just and successful form of government ever devised by the hand of man (and, evidently through divine impulse), we should be very careful that we adhere to its provisions and consider just how we solve our problems. As Mary Baker Eddy wrote, “Cowardice is selfishness.”

To simply react to these events — without careful thought on how they can be minimized or eliminated — is irresponsible. Sometimes, the right choice in such matters requires taking a politically unpopular stand for what one considers precious (in this case, not only keeping people/children safe, but preserving freedom and liberty). A free people can only preserve and maintain their liberty through constant vigilance.

Statistically, one of the most effective measures to reduce the opportunity and consequence of such horrific circumstances as these mass shootings, is allowing those in positions of trust and authority (whether in a school, a theater, a mall, a restaurant or any public venue), to have a concealed weapon. Those who wish to volunteer to take proper training and agree to carry a weapon on their person or locked in a place of ready access in their place of employment (as in a school, where they alone have the key) is a good start to providing the needed level of security in such public places. The average number of people killed in the last 100 mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.33. (See Davi Barker’s analysis “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics,” July 31, 2012).

Yet we do not see in the mainstream media a serious consideration of this most effective measure. Most of what we hear about is what we know does not work, namely banning so-called “assault weapons” (a real misnomer, since a true assault weapon has full automatic capability and is extremely difficult to obtain anyway), and limiting clip capacity.

“In virtually every mass school shooting during the past 15 years, the shooter has been on or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs,” according to The Washington Times.

Let us think these most important decisions through very clearly. Historically, there are only two things that separate a free person and a slave. One is the ability to own private property. The second is the right to bear arms to defend one’s self. Every single free nation throughout the history of mankind has this premise as a truism.

We all wish to keep our children and each and every one of us safe. We cannot sacrifice our freedom and our liberty for a perceived security. Let us consider all the options in this issue and their impacts in this light.