Civil liberties are things that in modern times are often taken for granted. Afforded to us by the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights, our civil liberties are provided via restrictions on our national government to guarantee to us certain freedoms. Ones such as those guaranteed to us in the First Amendment, as well as the right to assumed privacy which we derive from a multitude of amendments. Our civil rights, however, exist separately and distinctly; life, liberty, and property are three things that are believed by many to be guaranteed at birth.

Unfortunately, some of these many freedoms which we enjoy can come in conflict with each other. Recently, some may note an increase in stateside violence with the horrific incident in Newtown, Conn., as well as terror attacks with the recent bombing in Boston as well and the 2010 attempted bombing in Times Square. With this supposed increase have come many attempts at reactive legislation to quell what many see as an unwarranted fear among some Americans. Originating with the PATRIOT Act following the attacks on 9/11, this movement toward reactionary restrictions on the privacy of American citizens has exponentially increased rather than decreased under the current administration. The administration has shown support for the most recent fiscal year’s update of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as well as support for various attempts at gun control across the nation, which some say are necessary but others challenge as unconstitutional.

While the NDAA, which is seen by some to be one of the most invasive pieces of national defense litigation since the days of the Red Scare, was enacted prior to the most recent terror bombing during the Boston Marathon, it still wouldn’t thwart the tragic event from taking place. This begs the question of whether any amounts of restriction, regardless of intensity, will really provide for a completely safe America.  Many are willing to pay the price of a potential loss of civil liberties for a sense of security. Unfortunately, without proper intelligence and execution of these laws, all they do is provide the potential for further loss of privacy for other upstanding citizens while still not preventing the very horrors which they were intended to prevent. The NDAA, which was challenged by Sen. Rand Paul for provisions that calmingly authorize the potential for indefinite detention without trial of American citizens suspected of terrorism, still lacked what was necessary to prevent two individuals—one who was already being watched by the FBI—from engaging in an act of stateside terrorism.

While a safer society is something we can all agree on, what must be determined is the best route for getting there. And while many people see the stripping of civil liberties as a quick and easy fix, it has been proven time and time again that this is not the solution. What is needed is not only debate over more adequate legislation, but also to improve the ways in which we enforce the laws which have already been enacted for such matters. But more importantly, we need regular Americans to ask questions about what the best solutions are for the issues that concern them, and we need people to understand the importance of the liberties that the founding fathers fought so hard for.