The problem is not that they want to be safe, but that they are willing to give up all the rights even against the minimum amount of danger. First off, never g

The problem is not that they want to be safe, but that they are willing to give up all the rights even against the minimum amount of danger. First off, never give up all of your yours in the name of safety. If you do, then you better make sure it's very temporary in nature, and/or for very specific targets. Second, it better be to save something like 1 million people a year, not like 100 people per year on average. Make sure that the compromise of giving up all of your rights (if you can even accept such a thing), is done for a very real and major cause. If you're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and infringe on everyone's freedoms, it better not be just to save 100 lives that year. It better be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands at least. Otherwise, it's clearly not worth it, and that money and effort could be better used in some other place (such as healthcare, education, etc) where the return on investment is many orders of magnitude greater. But even if it's worth it money wise, you still have to counter-balance it with the power you're giving your own government, and how much that government is going to abuse that power. Sure, the government will protect you from "terrorism", but is that worth the cost of losing your freedom, and having the risk of being arrested for anything you dare say against the government? Many people in the past decided that they'd rather die than lose their freedom, so it's definitely not a clear cut choice, even if the government does save you from certain death. But the government is abusing all of this power today, and all of this money, and they have much less to show for it, to the point where the clear cut choice is to not accept what the government is doing.