"Our business is to secure liberty," [Ashcroft] added
I wmnder what he meant by that
If you tell the Navy to secure a building, they will lock all the doors, turn off the lights, and leave.
If you tell the Army to secure a building, they will set up barricades and not allow anyone in or out of the building.
If you tell the Air Force to secure a building, they will sign a three year lease with an option to buy.
But, if you tell the Marines to secure a building, they will go in with a full tactical assault team, kill everyone inside and disperse defensive fire at anyone who approaches.
""Our business is to secure liberty," [Ashcroft] added ... (I wonder what he meant by that)"
A fascinating choice of words: "to secure liberty".
That's about the same as "to secure freedom."
Which is the same as "the security of a free state."
So why isn't Ashcroft working to restore the 2nd Amendment, which has the security of a free state as its goal? (RKBA being necessary to a militia, which is necessary for such security.)
The big semantic problem is that "Security" is treated as the end. In fact security is based on a verb that takes an object. What do we wish to secure: freedom or safety?