Anyone willing to trade their freedoms for security is engaging in a lose-lose proposition. Look no further back than the 20th century for profound lessons that prove this exchange is at best a temporary solution that leads to long-term disaster.

Freedoms are attained at a cost, and there is no guarantee they will return once relinquished in a trade for security. 

And if the prior century taught anything, it is to be highly suspicious of those in power who seek to curb freedoms for the so-called “greater good.”

A much more recent example came Sunday from Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin. Speaking to NPR, the top cop proposed a 9/11 style reaction to violence in our cities and added that some freedoms will be on the chopping block.

Franklin criticized constitutional carry, which is now in place in over half of U.S. states. He pushed for regulations on weapons that the anti-gun lobby labels as “ghost guns” and supports longer waiting periods for purchasing certain firearms.

The police chief trotted out the usual “I’m a defender of the constitution, but…” defense. It is predictable and tiring. Either a person supports freedoms expressed in the Bill of Rights or they do not.

“Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy…But I’m okay with giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So, I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.”

Franklin resorted to citing his expertise as an excuse for deciding the extent that constitutional freedoms apply to ordinary law-abiding Americans.

“Law enforcement — we are the experts. We’re the subject matter experts at protecting America, right? Protecting our cities. And, you know, we should be utilizing that in that manner. So, I am charged with protecting this community. And if there are better ways of protecting it, I think we should be looking at those better ways to protect it.”

The Tulsa police chief drew a parallel between gun rights and seat belt laws. Franklin noted that there was resistance to changing driver habits initially, but people then fell in line. “If you look at it today, it is an automatic thing that people put on their seatbelt when they get into a vehicle.”

He said that the American public must give up some things to achieve safety. He argued that there are freedoms that may be relinquished in the public interest.

Much of Franklin’s frustration may stem from Tulsa’s No. 8 ranking in U.S. News and World Report’s list of the “Top 25 Most Dangerous Places in the U.S.”

Either way, as police chief it is unlikely that he will be personally forced to wave goodbye to personal freedoms under his proposals. All too often, that is the outcome from leaders who express their belief that giving up liberties is necessary.

How often do we see political leaders in Washington rail against gun rights while simultaneously being guarded by armed personnel? Obviously, they are not clamoring to disarm those who protect them in a dangerous society, but they are not reluctant to call for everyday Americans to forgo that precious right.

Further, the restrictions Franklin espouses will have zero effect on Tulsa’s criminal element. Those who prey on good civilians do not wait for background checks and are not limited to how many firearms they may purchase.

As usual, it is only the tax-paying and law-abiding public who would be forced to surrender their freedoms. Meanwhile, those who commit violent acts are free to roam the streets, only now they have even less concern over encountering a properly armed and trained civilian.

This pattern is only too familiar.