Some new(old) arguments about civil liberties

I don't think a lot of people realize this, or if they do they don't talk about it, is that not doing these things is the real violation of civil liberties. What do I mean by that?

It means simply that if you increase the risk of attack, you're basically planning to throw out your civil liberties. The more attacks that occur, the more people that die, the more civil liberties the people are going to vote out. This was the fear on 9/11, and it still exists, precisely because we have not been attacked again.

People who want to increase the risk of attack because they believe their civil liberties are too valuable to risk, are themselves the Angels of the Apocalypse. They are the true danger, because their policies will guarantee the destruction of civil rights.

This kind of reverse logic isn't so rare,I wish it were. You see it with taxes. The Democrats argue that increasing taxes will pay for etc. The real reality is that decreasing taxes increases revenues, which increases taxes. Then there's gun control. Take away guns from law abiding civilians, and the Democrats argue that crime will fall. The reality is the opposite, take away guns from law abiding civilians and crime will increase.

Beware people who promise that you will get what you need, so long as you do what they tell you to do. It's too bad that people who don't know how to use Logic can't tell the difference between con-artists and real charities.