No he didn't. he compared the historical objections that was made by slavers when their ability to own slaves became illegal.

The south has even songs about the "good ol' days" where slaves was working in the field. Plantation owners clearly saw the change as oppression, and a limitation on their freedom to operate ones house and businesses as one pleases.

It's called analogy. I think the same reasoning and conclusions apply in both situations, which doesn't mean they are equivalent. It's a useful example when all this "which kind of license offers more freedom" arises.

The societies we live in have answered that denying a little personal freedom in order to protect the collective offers more freedom than the one in which that doesn't happen. There's no debate about that. Then, why are we still debating this?