In order to move this along towards being firearm related, and more specifically towards the open carry of handguns, I'll try to reframe your question and then give you my response.
But first - the Founding Fatherswere not willing to risk all safety for freedom. They not only told King George III to kiss their backsides, but they took up arms - and convinced others to do the same - to make sure that Georgie could not come over and stretch their necks. There was a possibility they could have lost, and if they did lose they would have been Those Colonial Traitors instead of the Founding Fathers. But the force of arms and will prevailed for them, and we are American citizens instead of English subjects.
Why do I choose to carry a handgun, and why do I choose to carry it openly as opposed to concealed? Do those choices relate in any way to my believing that there is a distinction between safety and freedom?
I carry a handgun because it is the most convenient method for me to provide the ability to secure my own safety. In order to do that, I must cherish the freedom to make that choice, and the freedom to accept the responsibilities that derive from that decision. The opposite would be to eitherchoose someone else (the police? your momma?) to secure my personal safety, or choose to allow complete random chance to determine if I will be safe (nobody - including me -gives the proverbial rodent's hindquarters if I am or am not).
I open carry because it is the way I have found works best for me to declare the above decision to the community. It is more convenient than a sign worn around my neck, less cumbersome than carrying a poster or banner, and less expensive than taking out an ad every week so that everyone will have a chance to read about my decision. Additionally, there is a cultural shorthand involved that reduces the above paragraph to my act of open carrying and other folks noticing that. No words involved, no translation from one language to another.
The final question is the most difficult. Do I believe there is a distinction between saftey and freedom? My answer is unequically NO. Using the analogy of the flock of sheep, I believe they are neither free nor safe. The shepard protects them from wolves and other predators, and guides them to the best pastures, for the purpose of fattening them for the kill. Now perehaps that is the reason sheep exist, and I have no problem with that, as I admit I find most parts of the tasty.
Am I free? Again, my answer is unequivically NO. If I was, I would not need to secure the permission of any person or government to do anything I felt like doing. What freedom I have is restricted - some by social convention that I have agreed to abide by, and some by social convention that I do not agree to abide by.
Am I safe? Again, unequivically NO. There are things out there that can harm me. There is nothing I can do about that, except decide whether or not to spend time worrying about the killer astiroid, or the micrometeorite, or the whatever absolutely random something that is going to knock me off in spite of worrying and taking all possible precautions. Instead, I choose to focus on those things that I believe I can either control or influence. I do not dart out in front of cars. I do not dress up in hundred dollar bills and skip thru "the projects" at night.
I get my flu shot every fall. I take my meds so that in spite of having various conditions and ailments they do not become worse. I try to maintain situational awareness. I seek out training in the use of many different tools and techniques, and adapt that to my own situation. One part of that is carrying a handgun openly.
In summary, I try to retain as much personal freedom as I can, and try tosecure as much safety for myself as I can. I like to think I'm freer than the sheep in the herd. I like to think I'm safe enough that I do not need to walk down the street clutching my firearm and swiveling my head so that the little girl in The Exorsist looks like a statue.