This is mind-boggling, and thoroughly depressing at the same time:
Here’s a Chicago Sun-Times columnist talking about safety, and the sacrifices that may be necessary to have “safe” neighborhoods.
She went to Obama’s neighborhood as part of the press pool, and she noticed that his street was basically sealed to public traffic, pedestrian or otherwise. She describes Obama’s street: concrete barriers on each end, police in uniform and plainclothes everywhere, and rigid ID checks on anyone who tried to enter the area.
Then she goes on about how safe she felt, and how we could have that sort of safety all over the place. Wouldn’t it be awesome if we had that kind of police presence, and those kinds of rigid ID checks in more places?
Here’s a quote:
There’s no telling how many guns would be taken off the street in gang- and drug-plagued neighborhoods if police were to set up roadblocks and search everyone going into those areas.
Of course, if the Chicago PD actually started such a program, it wouldn’t take a full day before people like Mary Mitchell started shouting “racism”–when it turns out that most of the people going into and out of those gang- and drug-plagued neighborhoods are the residents, not the nefarious drug dealers.
Think about the implications here, though. This is a presumably educated person, from an ethnic group that was treated like property in this country until a mere hundred and fifty years ago–an ethnic group that wasn’t allowed to vote in parts of the country until a mere fifty years ago–and she advocates tossing out the Bill of Rights in exchange for the dubious safety of a near-total police state. She wants to live in an urban concentration camp, and she actually asks for someone to demand her ID before entering her neighborhood.
She is asking for masters. She wants to put total responsibility for her personal safety into the hands of the government–a government she distrusts on plenty of other matters. She wants to be watched over, controlled, checked for weapons and drugs every day. She wants to be asked about her comings and goings. All of this is an acceptable price to pay for the feeling of safety she gets from this kind of treatment. What’s worse, that feeling of safety is dependent on everyone else getting the same treatment as well.
The title of your op-ed piece is entirely accurate–what keeps Obama safe could protect the rest of us. You want to know what keeps Obama safe, Mrs. Mitchell? Men and women with guns, people who will use those guns to shoot anyone who would attempt to bend a hair on his head. Why is it that particular kind of safety arrangement is acceptable for Obama, but not for my wife and kids?
You know liberty is dead and buried when people who ought to know better cease defending it, and ask for bigger and stronger chains instead.