If I understand it correctly, DNW’s comment is not quite in sync with the above link, either.

Apparently the issue was trading off:
1) the willingness of the Penn family to pay a sum for the colony’s defense as a gift, but thereby they avoided accepting that their holdings were also subject to taxation by the legitimately elected legislature of Pennsylvania. This provided the “safety” or “security” in Franklin’s remark, if they accepted the gift to fund the desired defense rather than pursue taxation.
2) But accepting the gift rather than forcing the Penn holdings to be taxed in accord with law and precedent also meant the Assembly was giving up their “liberty” as free men to create and support a government by the consent of those so governed.

Franklin was urging the Assembly to reject the Penn family’s gift and pursue the taxation path as needed to fund the Western colonists defense.

As a Confederate sympathizer, Booth would have done better to shoot Johnson and leave Lincoln alone.
The recovery of the South would have been faster and less fraught, many believe, had Lincoln handled it instead of his Vice President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes_Booth
(the rest of his plot did include killing Johnson, but wasn’t carried out)

Forty years later, when the centenary of Lincoln’s birth was celebrated in 1909, a border state official reflected on Booth’s assassination of Lincoln: “Confederate veterans held public services and gave public expression to the sentiment, that ‘had Lincoln lived’ the days of Reconstruction might have been softened and the era of good feeling ushered in earlier.” The majority of Northerners viewed Booth as a madman or monster who murdered the savior of the Union, while in the South, many cursed Booth for bringing upon them the harsh revenge of an incensed North instead of the reconciliation promised by Lincoln.

Somethings I didn’t know, but which might have some bearing on his decision to kill Lincoln himself, rather than assigning that to others involved in the plot.

While attending the Milton Boarding School, Booth met a Romani fortune-teller who read his palm and pronounced a grim destiny, telling him that he would have a grand but short life, doomed to die young and “meeting a bad end”. His sister recalled that he wrote down the palm-reader’s prediction, showed it to his family and others, and often discussed its portents in moments of melancholy.

In all, Booth performed in 83 plays in 1858. Booth said that, of all Shakespearean characters, his favorite role was Brutus, the slayer of a tyrant.

Booth then jumped from the President’s box to the stage, where he raised his knife and shouted “Sic semper tyrannis”. (Latin for “Thus always to tyrants,” attributed to Brutus at Caesar’s assassination; state motto of Virginia and mentioned in the new “Maryland, My Maryland”, future anthem of Booth’s Maryland.)

On Booth’s support for the Confederacy, which was at odds with the rest of his family. He was very, very, very wrong about this, but he was not unique in that opinion.

And looking upon African Slavery from the same stand-point held by the noble framers of our constitution, I for one, have ever considered it one of the greatest blessings (both for themselves and us,) that God has ever bestowed upon a favored nation.

(In) his diary, where he had written of Lincoln’s death, “Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment.”…”God is my judge. I love justice more than I do a country that disowns it, more than fame or wealth.”

Booth’s nemesis believed the same thing from the other direction.

My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” ? Abraham Lincoln

It’s a fraught task, to discern which side is God’s and which is just your own, but I try to remember this test (from a source since forgotten): “If you conveniently discover that God hates exactly the same people you do, you should probably reconsider.”

On the proximate cause for the assassination plot.

The likelihood of Lincoln’s re-election filled Booth with rage towards the President, whom Booth blamed for the war and all of the South’s troubles.

Booth had hoped that the assassinations (of Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, and Seward) would create sufficient chaos within the Union that the Confederate government could reorganize and continue the war if one Confederate army remained in the field or, that failing, would avenge the South’s defeat.

Booth’s plans depended on something over which he had no control.

Booth learned of the surrender of Johnston’s army, the last Confederate armed force of any size. Its capitulation meant that the Civil War was unquestionably over and Booth’s attempt to save the Confederacy by Lincoln’s assassination had failed.

This precedent should be considered by those who might be influenced by the fire-brands calling for the assassination of any public figure.

Booth was surprised to find little public sympathy for his action, especially from those anti-Lincoln newspapers that had previously excoriated the President in life. News of the assassination reached the far corners of the nation, and indignation was aroused against Lincoln’s critics, whom many blamed for encouraging Booth to act.

Words are cheap, if you never expect to put them into action yourself.
However, words do have influence, and consequences.

It’s all in the timing, and it ain’t over till it’s over.
IMO, had JFK lived out his full second term, I believe that his legacy would be a lot more tarnished and problematical than it is.
The myth of “Camelot” was a deliberate invention to gild his halo.

https://people.com/politics/jackie-kennedy-invented-camelot-jfk-assassination/
“Just days after JFK’s assassination, Jackie Kennedy crafted a glittering fairytale about his presidency that would captivate the nation for decades to come”

The Guardian thinks Kennedy was better than the myth, without citing any examples of why that might be true; granted, the mything does muddle up the mundane reality, whatever it might be.
The post does have a good history of the real & fictional King Arthur and Camelot myths.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/21/jfk-jackie-kennedy-camelot-myth
“The source of the Camelot reference is a story of failed idealism. It, like all mythology, distracts us from the whole story of Kennedy”

“I did some research on Franklin’s quotes (or variants using these words). Looking at the three or four contexts he employed this line, it is unclear what Franklin meant.”

Right. Smart stance.

This was not a “now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country” moment.

I was shocked when I read, possibly in a D. H. Fischer work, that the original phrase was formulated in a dispute with the governor of Pennsylvania over the funding of the defense of the frontier … inhabited in measure by Scotch-Irish for whom the Quaker dominated Assembly had little sympathy.

It seems that the governor was vetoing a tax on the Penn family holdings, and the Assembly was refusing to allocate funds for the defense of the western settlements unless the Penns were also taxed.

In other words, we will not vote a tax bill to fund frontier defense, and I am sure those dying there would not want us to anyway.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Placed in context, Franklin’s remarks seem less than noble. The Overmountain men of a couple decades later, knew better than to wait on the aid of the easterners.

” … surely the Proprietaries Conduct, whether as Fathers of their Country, or Subjects to their King, must appear extraordinary, when it is considered that they have not only formally refused to bear any Part of our yearly heavy Expences in cultivating and maintaining Friendship with the Indians, tho’ they reap such immense Advantages by that Friendship; but they now, by their Lieutenant, refuse to contribute any Part towards resisting an Invasion of the King’s Colony, committed to their Care; or to submit their Claim of Exemption to the Decision of their Sovereign.

In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. “

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107

A number of the founding father’s were not entirely admirable, to say the least, once their entire lives or careers are taken into context.

If the totality of Franklin’s quotes on various topics are taken as accurate, he was quite a puke.

Hamilton, despite his courage at Washington’s side in battle, was an apparent head case, vainglorious, hyper touchy, and probably dishonorable in many ways.

The only lastingly good thing Aaron Burr did was to put the quietus on Hamilton.

And of course there is Benedict Arnold, who if he died at Quebec, as so many have previously pointed out, would have gone down as one of the greats.

Just desert. Traitors to liberty don’t deserve to be secure. And Franklin as a Founding father was surely wise, so it must be true.

This is a phrase that’s become virtually a guiding principle among isolationist libertarians (and certainly at FEE.org).

However, I did some research on Franklin’s quotes (or variants using these words). Looking at the three or four contexts he employed this line, it is unclear what Franklin meant.

Was is just a witticism attacking fair-weather friends? And undermining their authority or seriousness? Doe it really mean “You are committing treason to our cause? Or is it intended as an insult? A catcall?

These nuances and distinctions, I found, become equivocal when read in context.

Therefore, I’ve ceased to use it, even as much as I wish Franklin meant what I want to say, and gave us a serious guidepost to follow. Unfortunately, he did not.

Franklin was more instrumental and pragmatic than, say, Tom Paine or Patrick Henry. Franklin, like Mencken, simply went with the Bon Motte.

I don’t think our newspaper carried Hatlo’s (TDIET), just the other one (TOBAL) by Harry Shorten and Al Fagaly (who both also wrote Archie comics).
The Hell scenes (Hatlo’s Inferno) only ran from 1953 to 1958, so they would have been over before I could read them for myself anyway.

Nice walk down memory lane; that may be why I feel such an affinity for Aesop – he would have enjoyed both comics.

Hell was part of “They’ll Do It Every Time.” Wiki has a Hell scene showing restaurant customers, who complained their steak was too rare, being spit-roasted over a slow fire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They'll_Do_It_Every_Time

The art style was similar in both strips.

Another favorite Franklin maxim from “1776”, which I paraphrase often, might say, “Tyranny is always justified in the first person — our tyranny. It is only in the third person — their tyranny — that it is unjustified.”

Original quote: “Rebellion is always legal in the first person — our rebellion. It is only in the third person — their rebellion — that it is illegal.”

I haven’t found it in any quote collections yet (so maybe it was just theatrical license), but here are a few more along the same lines, and some graphics.
https://fee.org/articles/17-benjamin-franklin-quotes-on-tyranny-liberty-and-rights/

azquotes has even more, but there are precious few citations attached to any of them.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.4LH4k9qgQGh1O3FdfitRTgHaFa%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=045b1e55def647ff5e32ebfe85d734c05eec87958d4759db842d763fb9c5945e&ipo=images

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.isJVq17Q-Wkjf1BKmm7mvgHaD8%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=b0a124aafd14d4137b0f6cb12c274bf656a84720f1aeff6adf8e7d3fd78eda5b&ipo=images

And some Jefferson for good measure:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.faXh4AYz2KIccHeC0UYyLwHaDf%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=e3111ba62e22af805ad1bce8dec3ee1bb008957fd003d9b4c83425c51f865ded&ipo=images

One that sticks in my memory is a scene of two backyards with a fence down the middle. Neighbor A is on a ladder pruning the other guy’s tree limbs that extend over the fence.
In the next half-panel, Neighbor A’s red union suit is drying on the clothes line (that’s how old the cartoon is) and the legs are blowing over the top of the fence, so Neighbor B clips them off.

The “message” of the cartoon, as best I can tell, is that life happens, so don’t try to make everything into a lawsuit.

Other suggestions where “there oughta be a law” are similar, but the gentle humor suggests we should just work things out amicably, and be tolerant (in the classic sense of the word), because if there is something that annoys you, chances are you are doing something that annoys someone else.