If there is one thing we can do to keep our children safe…

Should we pass a law? Last year, two teens drowned in Connecticut government school pools under the supervision of government employees. More than 3,000 unintentional, non-boating-related drownings occur each year, and about 700 of those are children under 14. Making life jackets mandatory will save lives.

The suggestion may seem absurd, but you must admit making life jackets mandatory will save lives. Even if the government is unable to enforce such a rule in backyard pools or private beaches, they certainly can enforce that rule at school, city and municipal pools across the country.

…if there’s even one thing we can do, if there’s just one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.

…if there’s even one thing we can do to keep our children and our community safe, if there’s just one step we can take to prevent more families from feeling what they feel after they’ve lost a loved one, we’ve got an obligation to take that step.

Those were President Obama’s words yesterday in Minnesota speaking to the gun violence problem, as he sets the liberal standard of the future – a police state where you think you’re living in a free country. But we really do live in the United States of America where we accept a certain level of risk so we may live in a free state.

If you are risk-adverse living in a free country, you are welcome to change your own lives to reflect your level of acceptable risk, but you are not allowed – even if you are the government – to restrict the freedom of others. By definition, if we restrict the freedom of others we are no longer living in a free state.

Certainly, we are already restricting freedom “for the collective good” in many ways, but where do you draw the line? Mr. President, I draw the line today at my inalienable right to life and liberty. The right to protect myself and my family using methods that are appropriate for my situation. I absolutely refuse to allow the government to come into my life and tell me I can not use a specific handgun or rifle because some politician or bureaucrat thinks it’s not necessary. Every home is different. Every neighborhood is different. Every person who uses a firearm for self-defense is different.

Stand up and fight “feel-good” legislation that buys political points for politicians while taking your freedoms away. This must stop.

Posted in ,

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. Dimsdale on February 5, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Ban cars!? With 250.000 injuries to children a year, about 2000 of those dying from their injuries, gun injuries/deaths pale in comparison.?? After all, “if it saves even one life”…..? (National Center for Statistics and Analysis)

    Liberty requires individual freedom and the ability to make good or bad decisions and learn from them.? Progressive thought is quite the opposite, ignoring Franklin’s warning about trading liberty for a little safety, seeking rather to create a risk free society where you are relieved of any freedom to frankly do anything that is not approved by the government.? It has never worked anywhere, so why should it work here?? The U.S. did not become the greatest country in the world by playing it safe and being smothered in feel good government regulation.

  2. joe_m on February 5, 2013 at 10:09 am

    Leafy Green Vegetables Rank Among Top Causes Of Food Poisoning
    Each year, nearly 48 million Americans, roughly 1 in 6, catch a food-borne illness. These numbers include 128,000 hospitalizations and 2,000 deaths.
    Let’s ban green leafy vegetables, it will save lives. And chicken and ….

  3. Murphy on February 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    As my buddy Ben Franklin said? “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.”

  4. JBS on February 5, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    The Obama regime wants to keep all children safe. How noble. We all want to keep our children safe. It’s insulting to think or say otherwise.
    In its ongoing effort to keep anything untoward from happening to anyone, everyone will have to follow their rules? They are from the government and they know better than anyone?
    I call it creating a logical fiction and applying it to practical life. Once instituted, it becomes an immutable law like gravity. Every year, a predictable number of people fall in the shower. Should a safety harness be required by the government in order to safely take a shower?
    The Obama regime wants to make rules for every facet of life. With the advent of ObamaCare, the government will be eventually be paying for all health care.? Soon, an obese citizen who goes to the emergency room for stitches, could wind up in the psych ward for attempting suicide by being too fat. What is the most absurd, but logical end?
    In its quest to make everything safe, the regime wants to restrict this type or that type of firearm. 30-round magazines are, somehow, bad and have to be banned. BUT . . . but, if you are deemed to be an…

  5. JBS on February 5, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    . . . imminent threat, you will have a drone strike (or SWAT raid) executed on you. No trial, no judge, no court, no due process, on 4th Amendment protection. Just an administrative judgement and BOOM! (You’ll never hear it)
    The regime wants to protect everyone from everything, for their own good, except from the Regime.

  6. Lynn on February 5, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    Nothing to add, nice solid argument, Steve.


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.