Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security.

So far as arguments are concerned, my arguments will be conceived to answer these two questions: a) Is the government meant to protect me or my rights? b) Is the government surveying me fulfilling that duty? I would now like to address those arguments. Argument A: Government Dependence & Right to Bear Arms. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”[1] The Second Amendment had a very particular purpose: to grant the greater people the right to resist a government tyranny. If the government provides man his security, the government will be able to take it away. The Declaration of Independence and the Forefathers mentioned very frequently the notion of the Creator [2]: an infallible artist who crafted the universe with very deliberate methodology. They believed furthermore, as I do, that God had the intent to create man with inalienable rights. As he would not take them away like men of hubris would. If we allow 'national security' to supersede these rights, the U. S government will be next in line for tyrannical governments (and many would already argue they are there as we speak). If the government is becoming tyrannical, and it is a matter of civil liberties or national security, I personally pick the former. I accept that the government has some role in society (as such I am not an Anarchist), however I also acknowledge that a well-armed populace can handle itself (as they did in the American Revolution) and that government overreach is not a necessary nor viable solution. Argument B: The Success of Government in Security. As far as the success of the U. S government in the security department is concerned, the measures taken by federal agencies to locate and arrest ‘terrorists’ is baffling. Whether the “No Fly” list or the “Terror Watch” list, the government has sputtered incompetent results from its policies regarding ‘national security’. I am reminded by a man in American politics who I greatly admire, and who I had the pleasure of meeting, Dr. Ron Paul. Paul states on his website[3], “It is likely that some Americans are on the list solely because of their political views and activities. ” Further damning is the point Dr. Paul makes later on in the very same article, “Sadly, many who understand that new gun control laws will leave us less free and less safe support expanding the surveillance state. Like those promoting gun control, people calling for expanded surveillance do not let facts deter their efforts to take more of our liberties. There is no evidence that mass surveillance has prevented even one terrorist attack. ” Dr. Paul is astonishingly right. It turns out that expanded “national security” measures by the federal government have not reportedly halted any attacks on U. S soil. Rather, they have resulted in tens of thousands of innocent Americans (and even non-Americans) being placed on lists[4], and for the government to continue legislating bigger data collection authorizations for the NSA. For instance, just before former President Obama left the White House, he allotted more powers to the federal government’s surveillance programs[5]. If we flounder in our civil duties as citizens to uphold a Constitutional government and own up to our civil liberties for a temporary sense of security, we will lose both liberty and security. If we depend too much on the government for our ‘security’, when these programs really just help the government collect Intel on us en masse, there will be no room left for civil liberties. They are testing the waters, as historically tyrannical governments. The more comfortable we are with it, the more they will usurp our freedoms. Consequently, they will also be doing this in collaboration with anti-gun measures to ensure we are a disarmed populace and incapable of revolting as our predecessors had. We should not trust the government as much as we do, the Forefathers would surely be disappointed. Round 1 Conclusion I thank my opponent for reading my arguments and look forward to their rebuttal. God bless! SOURCES CITED [1]. https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2]. https://nccs.net... [3]. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org... [4]. http://www.washingtontimes.com... [5]. https://www.eff.org...