Quote of the day—Patti Brigham

We believe that this is really not about the Second Amendment, it’s about public safety.

Patti Brigham
Co-chair of the Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
Gun control groups claim victory in Florida – for now
[They claimed victory because no pro freedom bills were passed, not because they were able to pass one or more laws infringing upon our rights. They have to try and keep their morale up somehow.

Aside from blocking the bills which would have reduced the infringements upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment what annoys me is that Brigham thinks she can bypass the Second Amendment with an argument about “public safety”. Apparently she is ignorant of and/or disagrees with Ben Franklin on the tradeoffs involving safety and liberty. Even if I knew nothing of the issue I would be substantially more inclined to side with Franklin than with Brigham.

“Public safety” doesn’t outweigh individual rights. This is particularly true when it involves prior restraint. If it did one could make a winning case for banning speech and writing which advocates socialism. Far more people have lost their lives because of socialism in the last 120 years than have lost their lives because of private ownership of firearms.

And that doesn’t even touch upon the fact that the Second Amendment is about public safety.—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Patti Brigham

  1. We must also remember that with “safety” policies that greatly infringe on our rights, such as gun control, the TSA, the War on Drugs etc, we actually get LESS safety in exchange for our Liberty.

    I’d side with Franklin too, but that is a much more difficult side to defend, especially to post New Deal Americans.

    But reality it is no contest!

    • The fact that you get less safety is hardly a surprise. Keep in mind that “the government agency to prevent X” will never actually work to end X. Instead, it will work to either make the situation unchanged, or worse. It will then use this as “evidence” that it is underfunded and understaffed and needs to be given more money and people.
      After all, if the “agency to prevent X” actually succeeded in its mission, people might think the agency could now be closed down, and that would put a whole pile of worthless tax sucking parasites out of work — a situation to be avoided at all cost.

  2. Patti Brigham’s group should change their name to New Americans for Zero Infringement of Safety.

    If you’re protecting safety, then surely any means to that end are justified; storm troopers, SWAT teams, death squads, WMDs, full surveillance, whatever it takes to achieve the Final Solution of total safety for all, forever.

    What a beautiful, perfect world they could force upon us in spite of our ignorance, if only they had the “freedom”, the “tools” and the “resources” to make it happen. Unfortunately they have that “Charter of Negative Rights” to overcome first.

    Understand that in their minds, having been fabricated as a tool of oppression by old, dead, white, male, greedy, mysoginist, racist, self-righteous and superstitious slave owners, the U.S. constitution represents arbitrary, nonsensical, unfair, unjust restrictions on carrying out what is only right and proper for preserving the Earth, protecting Safety, keeping us healthy and ensuring equality. Along with Jews, Christians, white men, and the concepts of self sufficiency and personal property then, it simply has to go.

    In the eyes of the duped then (the useful idiots), anyone standing in their way is standing in the way of progress, justice, fairness, equality, health, safety, compassion, science, and even the very survival of the planet. How much more urgent and more justified can the cause of Total Authorty become, and how much more deplorable its opponents? If you look at it from their perspective, shouldn’t we all be killed as soon as possible? Being that we represent everything they hate, everything wrong with the world, as obstacles to their beautiful vision, as spoilers, wreckers, and even planet killers, haven’t they been overly patient with us?

    • Perfect summary and insights, Lyle.

      Their contempt is evident and ample proof for the need for the 2A.

  3. If it was truly about public safety, they’d slice and dice the crime stats and ban/remove those ethnic, religious, or political groups with a very high propensity toward violence, because violence only thrives when it’s supported / tolerated / condoned by those in that community. Remove the community support, remove the problem.

  4. “We believe that this is really not about the Second Amendment, it’s about public safety.”

    In other words: “I don’t want to talk about the Second Amendment, so I’m going to change the subject. Please follow along and argue on my terms.”

    Or, if you like, try her tactics next time you get pulled over. “Ossifer, I believe that this is really not about speeding, it’s about overreaching government authority.” Good luck…

Comments are closed.