In the past week, there has been much talk of whether Apple should help the FBI gain access to a smartphone of one of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters. At stake is whether we are willing to sacrifice some of our freedom for some security.
In the past when the question was about guns, our answer has been a resounding no. Now that the question is about our privacy, there seem to be a lot of people saying yes.
On "The McLaughlin Group" last weekend, Pat Buchanan cited a Latin phrase "salus populi suprema lex," meaning "the safety of the people is the highest law." He doesn't say that when it comes to guns.
In other words: We will not give up our freedom to easily access weapons of war for the sake of safety, but we might be open to giving up our privacy.
If part of what the FBI wants to find in that phone is how the shooters got the guns, it need look no further than a Wal-Mart or a gun show.
The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant knows that this is where to get guns, and it tells its followers as much.
Easy access to guns is the Trojan horse of our time. ISIL didn't have to send a shooter. It didn't even have to provide the guns: Our own laws did that. And the next victim of these misguided laws may well be our privacy.
Why is it that the ability of gun manufacturers to sell weapons of war is held sacred, while our own privacy is considered negotiable?
