Clearly the terrorists are having a harder time with US security of late than they are with Belgium and France…they certainly aren’t trying any less hard to do to the US what they’ve done to those others. The facts don’t support the findings. Maybe the US is a bit less forthcoming with some of their tactics and capabilities?
It is astounding (and politically revealing) that the focus of this study would use government based security resources as the sole determinant(s) with regard to the safety of the US populace (and that of other countries), while blatantly ignoring the enhanced security inherent in a population which has the right to own and bear arms. Compare that to Belgium and France. Does anyone truly believe that the terror attacks in Paris would have continued beyond a mere minute or two (if that long) if armed citizens had been among the intended targets? For that matter, would the terrorists have even considered the citizens of those countries sufficiently “soft targets” if they knew they were potentially armed? Without exception, any facility (even in the US) which has been selected by terrorists for a terror attack has been carefully chosen on the basis of whether weapons were permitted on the premises. No weapons allowed = viable terror target. Terrorists are inherent cowards. It takes NO courage whatsoever to attack civilians which can’t possibly shoot back. The entire premise of this report is to support the argument that we need more tax dollars going toward government security resources, when the truth (ironically) is that using current government resources, along with fewer restraints on the right to bear arms would eliminate the attractiveness of many soft targets and enhance overall public safety. When the government (and businesses) will refrain from restricting the Constitutional rights of citizens to lawfully bear arms and defend themselves without fear of being criminalized, the entire populous benefits and the ability of terrorists to actually create terror fades dramatically. History shows this to be true repeatedly. Japan chose not to invade the US after realizing that “behind every blade of grass” would be an armed American. Juxtapose this with Germany, which first required gun registration, then confiscated weapons. Millions of innocent and defenseless citizens died as a result. Governments which disarm their citizens create helpless citizens which terrorists (or the governing power itself) can exploit.
Very well said, LJK. However, we can expect to see a bunch of nasty & intolerant backlash to your sound reasoning from our death-wish friends on The Left.
Clearly the terrorists are having a harder time with US security of late than they are with Belgium and France…they certainly aren’t trying any less hard to do to the US what they’ve done to those others. The facts don’t support the findings. Maybe the US is a bit less forthcoming with some of their tactics and capabilities?
It is astounding (and politically revealing) that the focus of this study would use government based security resources as the sole determinant(s) with regard to the safety of the US populace (and that of other countries), while blatantly ignoring the enhanced security inherent in a population which has the right to own and bear arms. Compare that to Belgium and France. Does anyone truly believe that the terror attacks in Paris would have continued beyond a mere minute or two (if that long) if armed citizens had been among the intended targets? For that matter, would the terrorists have even considered the citizens of those countries sufficiently “soft targets” if they knew they were potentially armed? Without exception, any facility (even in the US) which has been selected by terrorists for a terror attack has been carefully chosen on the basis of whether weapons were permitted on the premises. No weapons allowed = viable terror target. Terrorists are inherent cowards. It takes NO courage whatsoever to attack civilians which can’t possibly shoot back. The entire premise of this report is to support the argument that we need more tax dollars going toward government security resources, when the truth (ironically) is that using current government resources, along with fewer restraints on the right to bear arms would eliminate the attractiveness of many soft targets and enhance overall public safety. When the government (and businesses) will refrain from restricting the Constitutional rights of citizens to lawfully bear arms and defend themselves without fear of being criminalized, the entire populous benefits and the ability of terrorists to actually create terror fades dramatically. History shows this to be true repeatedly. Japan chose not to invade the US after realizing that “behind every blade of grass” would be an armed American. Juxtapose this with Germany, which first required gun registration, then confiscated weapons. Millions of innocent and defenseless citizens died as a result. Governments which disarm their citizens create helpless citizens which terrorists (or the governing power itself) can exploit.
Very well said, LJK. However, we can expect to see a bunch of nasty & intolerant backlash to your sound reasoning from our death-wish friends on The Left.