Hi h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhh hh h h huh h h h h h h h h h h h h h hn n n n n n n n m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m mmmmmmm nnnnn nnnn bbbb nnnn mmmm nnnn bob nnn nnn bb
The U.S. has been fighting for freedom since the early 1700s. So why give it up?. And also why would we want to be safe over free? That sorta shows your A COWARD. Freedom is the way to go for me. But this is all opinionated. So if your so scared to be free then I guess you have no taste for adventure.
The United States Constitution already gives the citizenry the authority to provide for their own safety via the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Courts have already ruled that the police have NO requirement to provide safety to the citizens, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep arms guaranteed in the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective right of the people, citizens are not guaranteed safety by the police, and thereby, also the government, but have every right to provide for their own safety.
For those who insist the word "militia" in the 2nd amendment means the National Guard, 2 points to make on that.
1st point. We need to look at the definition of the word militia as defined at their time. The Old Webster's Dictionary, used at their time, defines "militia" as being any able-bodied male capable of picking up a weapon and using it to defend life and property. The oldest dictionary I have is a 1950's era Webster's Collegent Dictionary, which further defines "militia" as the above, but separates it into 2 portions, the first as being the "organized militia" meaning the National Guard, and the "unorganized militia" meaning everyone else. If you aren't in the National Guard or the Reserves, then by definition, you are part of the unorganized militia.
2nd Point. IF the 2nd amendment means "National Guard" only, and not the citizens, then our Founding Fathers had incredible foresight to create an amendment to the constitution the sole purpose being to establish an entity of the United States Army but then took 104 years to actually establish said entity. Obviously it was intended for the citizens individually.
Freedom has a better future than safety, by being free, we are bound to make mistakes, lots of it, and while making those mistakes we are learning lots of things that are better for us. But of course this process is a long and will be affected with a lot of factors, things might not come as we expected in the process. But still, even if things go wrong there are always a way to repair it.
Safety isn't a complete surrender of freedom, a person can still have some. A little needs to be given up to ensure our safety, but most people are willing to do that in order to feel comfortable going outside their house every day. There is a lunatic fringe that thinks every single freedom removed from society is the thing that will lead to us all being in concentration camps, but the majority of the public understands it's worth giving up a thing or two to feel secure.
As long as the rules and regulations are set that may somewhat impedes freedom for safety, I would rather be safe. In general, I would rather take a more safer approach in life than being free to do what I want. Sometimes being free to do whatever I wish can be dangerous and can cause injury (both mentally and physically) and it could cause an injury to someone else and not myself. Also, being safe does not mean you're prohibiting yourself and your boundaries. You can essentially enjoy a healthy lifestyle by observing caution and playing things more on the safe side.