Do you feel it's the government's responsibility....

[simi-steading]

....to keep us "safe"?

Simple yes or no answer...

I vote NO....

[nostawmama]

Safe from other countries: yes
Safe from other individuals and ourselves: no

[Forerunner]

That depends entirely on how highly you value liberty.

Protection, of any kind, draws to it, subjection.

Then there's all that rabble handed down to us by the Founders about the dangers of a standing army......

[HDRider]

Let me think about your question as I get in my car with my safety bumper and buckle my safety belt.

Sitting here at a red light drinking my beer and texting my bookie, I don't think my safety is any of your darn business.

[simi-steading]

LOL... Good answer

[mekasmom]

Safe from who? And keep who safe?
For general adult citizens, no it is not the responsibility of government to keep us safe. We have brains.
For those who are severely disabled, children, etc, who cannot keep themselves safe from predators, then,yes, the government does have a role. Isn't it the responsibility of society, laws, government to protect a severely retarded person, an elderly person, or other person in need from being taken advantage of by a shyster? Think about the people who call the elderly pretending to be their grandson, bank or whatever and get their cc info. Shouldn't there be laws against that? Isn't it gov's place to protect the unsuspecting from people like that? I would say state gov,not federal, but still, there must be laws against it.

[Old Vet]

Yes that should make everything safe for everybody like make drinks warm instead of hot or make sure you can not drive with out the seat belts buckeled or keep us safe from criminals that shoot anybody.The list goes on but they can't so much of that and let us roam freely. So you have to ask how many would be satisfied buy being cooped up all the time?

[beowoulf90]

NO!

It is my responsibility to keep me and mine safe.

The Governments job is to keep the Country safe..

[FourDeuce]

No, I don't think it's the government's job, and neither do they.

[Harry Chickpea]

If you don't think the government should keep us safe from other countries, don't thank a vet for his service. Don't take any pride in the military.

If you don't think the government should keep you safe from serial murderers, spit at the police when they walk by.

If you don't think the government should protect you from organized crime and companies that take your money and not deliver a product, move to Chicago.

If you had said "Is it the government's responsibility to keep you safe from yourself?" I might have been able to say no. Otherwise, they durned better work at keeping us safe if they want a paycheck.

[Forerunner]

Thebetter able they are to protect you, the better able they are to control and eventually destroy you.

Human nature proves, there is no other eventuality to creating a monster, made of men, with good intentions.


As for the list of compromised types of people, that responsibility would fall to family, but, in the name of swelling it's ranks and its power, the government will cheerfully take them off your hands so that you can live in precious convenience.

[sewserious]

From other countries: Yes. Anything more than that is a violation of the Constitution.

[wannabechef]

Originally Posted by nostawmama

Safe from other countries: yes
Safe from other individuals and ourselves: no

This...

[Awnry Abe]

No. But then again I just haven't invented a boogie-man scary enough to have the government keep from me.

[blooba]

Originally Posted by simi-steading

Do you feel it's the government's responsibility....
....to keep us "safe"?

Well here is part of your problem, You coin the term "government" as a overall term.

There are 3 forms of government as was the way this country was founded on and each is SUPPOSED to have a different role.

Federal Gov is SUPPOSED to uphold the Constitution and protect against foreign threats (at our borders)

State Gov is SUPPOSED to protect against capital crimes (or as we call em "felons")

County Gov is SUPPOSED to protect against petty crimes. (Theft and whatnot)

With our current thinking we continually group "government" into one big group when in fact there are 3 different levels and 3 different branches. Not all government is bad but governments overstepping their bounds are bad. (not saying which one has)

No government is SUPPOSED to keep us "safe" as the definition of safe is denied the chance of risk; ie: in secure custody: a criminal safe in jail.

Risk = Rewards and without risk we would have no rewards.Christopher Columbus risked falling off the edge of the world on his venture of discovering America? Educated risks are often times very rewarding.

[NoClue]

At a certain fundamental level, keeping us safe is the only reason that governments are even necessary. Think about it.

The question of whether or not it's the government's responsibility to keep us safe is a red herring. The real question is whether or not the proper way to go about keeping us safe is to prohibit/ban/criminalize anything and everything that poses a potential danger, and the answer to that question is most certainly 'No'.

If your question is, more specifically, whether or not it's the proper role of the Federal government, as defined by the US Constitution, to keep us safe from all potential dangers, the answer again is 'No'.

A much better question, to my mind, is whether or not a group of people have a right to decide for themselves what constitutes an acceptable level of safety? Our Constitution says, at a minimum, that the Federal government can't decide that. Could I, however, as a propery owner, declare that my property is a firearms-free zone? (Not a decision I would personally make, as I own several firearms, and an assortment of other weapons). Can a city legally do so? Can a state? One assumes that as far as States go, it would depend on the State's Constitution, and that Cities would be constrained by the Constitution of their respective states.

I don't know the conclusive answers to these questions. There is a line of Conservative thought which holds that the Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government, unless explicitly stated otherwise. I'm not sure I agree with this line of reasoning or it's legal soundness, but that's beside the point. It's a good starting point for the conversation. There is, or at least used to be, a sort of implicit individual 'right of refrain' - the right to free speech implied a right to free speech; the right to bear arms implied a right to not bear arms, etc. This right of refrain seems to be the single greatest casualty of progressive government (progressive with a small 'p' to distinguish it from Neo-Liberalism).

[Rocktown Gal]

NO

Can't put a simple NO...it's to short!

[farmrbrown]

Originally Posted by simi-steading

....to keep us "safe"?

Simple yes or no answer...

I vote NO....

Originally Posted by blooba

Well here is part of your problem, You coin the term "government" as a overall term.

There are 3 forms of government as was the way this country was founded on and each is SUPPOSED to have a different role.

Federal Gov is SUPPOSED to uphold the Constitution and protect against foreign threats (at our borders)

State Gov is SUPPOSED to protect against capital crimes (or as we call em "felons")

County Gov is SUPPOSED to protect against petty crimes. (Theft and whatnot)

With our current thinking we continually group "government" into one big group when in fact there are 3 different levels and 3 different branches. Not all government is bad but governments overstepping their bounds are bad. (not saying which one has)



No government is SUPPOSED to keep us "safe" as the definition of safe is denied the chance of risk; ie: in secure custody: a criminal safe in jail.




Risk = Rewards and without risk we would have no rewards.Christopher Columbus risked falling off the edge of the world on his venture of discovering America? Educated risks are often times very rewarding.

I had to think about it before I could answer, due to being a "yes" or "no".

The "but's" and "except for's" automatically come to mind, like protecting from foreign invasion, etc.
Those have been noted already.
But then I considered the word "safe", what it meant and decided to read the Constitution before answering.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

My answer is "no".
I may have missed it, but no where could I find in any branch or at any level, where it stated or implied that it was the government's responsibility to keep us safe.

In almost every situation described so far, and written into the Constitution, the government has the responsibility to enforce penalties, or take action or remedies if you will, against threats or crimes against us, but not necessarily to prevent them, which is what is actually required to keep someone absolutely "safe".

An important distinction that makes the question a lot easier to answer, provided you already know that from the moment we're born, the only guarantee in life, is death.

[simi-steading]

Some really good answers here...

I purposelly made it a simple question, because the answer really isn't a simple one...

Many people believe it's none of the governments business to protect us from our selves.. such as soda and seatbelt laws...

Yes, our government has a standing army, so that means they are supposed to keep us safe from foreign enemies... However, if that's the case, then why are there still talks of milita... .unless it's meant for internal enemies...

Police agencies were a long after though after the country was formed.. they came out of need.. but who's need?

As a whole, for being a "free" country, we sure seem to be bound by a lot more laws to keep us "safe" than a lot of other less "free" countries around the world..

[NoClue]

Originally Posted by simi-steading

Some really good answers here...

I purposelly made it a simple question, because the answer really isn't a simple one...

Many people believe it's none of the governments business to protect us from our selves.. such as soda and seatbelt laws...

Yes, our government has a standing army, so that means they are supposed to keep us safe from foreign enemies... However, if that's the case, then why are there still talks of milita... .unless it's meant for internal enemies...

Police agencies were a long after though after the country was formed.. they came out of need.. but who's need?

As a whole, for being a "free" country, we sure seem to be bound by a lot more laws to keep us "safe" than a lot of other less "free" countries around the world..

Further thought after rereading the responses:
It seems to hard to make the point that the Federal Government is limited to protecting us from foreign threat when so many oaths include the phrase: "...all enemies, foreign and domestic.."