at what price safety?

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.


10 thoughts on “at what price safety?

  1. JD says:

    What I love about these folks is they have no problem being asked for ID for just walking down the street but they will scream bloody murder if you want to see an ID to let them vote. . . . .

    I wonder what it is like living in their world, it sure as heck has no grounding in reality. . .

  2. M. Philbrick says:

    I don’t understand this mentality. No one takes responsibility for anything these days and I can’t stand it…

  3. Phil says:

    When they have already ceded a significant measure of personal responsibility and freedom to the government, what is the surprise when they give up the rest?

    As she said, “This is Chicago, not Alaska. Gun-toters here aren’t hunting wild game. They are hunting human beings.”

    That’s because they have ensured that there are no law abiding citizens toting their own personal weaponry for their own personal defense. They’ve given up the right and responsibility to care for themselves, so now their only defense is to cede every other right of privacy and freedom of movement in order to find some measure of safety. They simply have no other recourse, having already established a mindset where regaining freedom and retaking their own neighborhoods are unthinkable.

    A totalitarian police state is the only possible destination at the end of the path they have chosen to trod.

  4. ilcylic says:


    And Marko nails another one straight out of the park!

  5. scotaku says:

    Years ago I lived in and went to college in Chicago – this was in the period between the Daleys – and while making a late-night walk to the El I was walked past two guys, one of whom decided he wanted my coat. He was stopped by his buddy, who smacked him on the head and said, “Nah, man, what’chu doin’,” and then they just turned around and kept walking.

    It’s important to remember that this was pre-Daley 2, when carrying was an option, and something that we all knew about. And I like to believe that it helped me that night (‘cos I was a dirt-poor student who at best would have just handed the coat over).

    Lucky for me I now live near Boston, where common-sense gun lawsahahahahahahaha. Seriously, what I am I doing here? It’s like oppressive laws follow me – and if that turns out to be the case, then I promise that I will move to… well, name me a place, and I’ll go there.

  6. Avenger29 says:


    Check out New Hampshire like Marko did. Or come down South. Or go out to the West. Or Vermont. Or Alaska…

    Enjoy the freedom wherever you choose to move to…

  7. scotaku says:


    Did a lot of growing up in southern NH. Spent years living in North Carolina. And now I fear moving to a frontier like Alaska because apparently I’m the harbinger… 😉

    Still keeping my heart open for a return to NH, though…


  8. JIGSAW says:

    do these people (this person & those like her) actually “think” … i’m not sure where to start with my comments … i mean, there’s the willingness to have your comings & goings monitored; the assumption that everyone is “guilty”; the fact that we’ld need so many more policemen & associated ilk (sounds like there were half a dozen or more in that street .. how many streets are there in a standard sized city); then there’s the question of “who watches the watchers” and for what benefit? If we end up living in fear or in a police state who has won? And then what happens when deaths / murders whatever still occur even with these restrictions – more regulations? No, thanks!

  9. Chicagoheat says:

    Love this piece Marko! Mary Mitchell absolutely drives me insane. I’ve been a Chicago Copper for almost 15 years and have had to put up with MM second guessing and backseat driving my Department this whole time. She is so TYPICAL of the sheep in the world! These anti-gun folks who depend on the Police to handle their dirty work and to remove the cancerous individuals from the American Population’s body, and then tell us how savagely and oppressively we did it. To quote Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”: “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it.” Hat’s off to the men and women of the world (and your posts) who handle their own business! Call us afterwards and you have at least MY word I’ll back you on the paper.

  10. George Smith says:

    I’m glad someone raised the question of how many LEOs it would take. To ensure that Mary and Obama’s neighbourhoods are safe, Chicago would have to suspend any other service it provides to the rest of its citizens.

    Was she serious? Or perhaps, was she just having us on?


Comments are closed.