SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it’s a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.
WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it’s almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
Now which is a more real risk to the collective security of Americans, daily mass shootings or some fantasy where the government is “coming to take muh guns” and you end up living in some hills fighting a guerrilla fight against a military made up of your fellow nationals?
Gee, idk, should we ask the kids who survived Sandy Hook how they feel about it? (They’re old enough to vote now.)
Okay, so what’s your idea? You’re going to give up your freedoms for some temporary safety?
A response from a 2A’er with a “tard” suffix that illustrates my point. Thank you.
Nice, can’t even explain why you disagree. Thanks for proving my point.
What you have is shitty slogans and zero thought. You’re a trumpet for NRA propaganda and you’re too dumb to even realise it.
The whole “security for liberty” shit you’re referring to? Actually means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say.
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
Now which is a more real risk to the collective security of Americans, daily mass shootings or some fantasy where the government is “coming to take muh guns” and you end up living in some hills fighting a guerrilla fight against a military made up of your fellow nationals?
Gee, idk, should we ask the kids who survived Sandy Hook how they feel about it? (They’re old enough to vote now.)