Rights vs. safety
Published: Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The battle continues between constitutional rights and saving lives.
The Second Amendment has come under attack again in response to a string of violent massacres. The tragedies that occurred are just pure evil and, as a parent, my heart goes out to the parents of those murdered children.
President Obama went on television live from Sandy Hook and made the statement that we should not let our constitutional rights stand in the way of our safety and saving lives.
With that being said, look at what has happened in the name of safety and saving lives to our Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure after the Sept. 11 attacks. We now have 90-year-old grandmothers and infants being strip-searched at Transportation Safety Administration checkpoints.
Where do you think this will go if Obama and his cohorts get their way with our Second Amendment?
Our Constitution is the foundation of our country and should not be changed for any reason — including safety. In essence, the Constitution itself ensures our safety.
If the government is so concerned about saving lives, stop the government funding of Planned Parenthood, which has killed millions of babies by performing abortions.
It's time to stop the hypocrisy and wake up to what is really happening to this great nation of ours.
Ron Pfaff Jr.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Choosing judges I
- Choosing judges II
- Prevailing wage downsides I
- Thanks to our veterans
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- About Quinn & Rose I
- Valid comparison?
- Ethanol’s benefits
- Name game
- Hero at rest