Huh, most of the suicide bombers in the Middle East use homemade bombs, not guns. It's unlikely terrorists would use guns for terrorism. Way too ineffective.
I don't say these things to criticize what the passengers on those planes did. They reacted as we've all been trained to react. They dialed 9-1-1 and waited passively for "proper authorities" to deal with the situation. However, that passivity is a death trip. Passivity and pacifism have always been death trips, and the terrorist attacks only proved that fact.
The lesson that we need to learn from the terrorist attacks is never to be passive in the face of evil. When we are attacked, we need to immediately use force against our attackers. The "proper authorities" won't always be there to help us until it is too late. While we are waiting, we need to be doing all that we can to kill terrorists.
Denying us weapons to use in self-defense against the terrorists is stupid. The idiot who wrote this column buried himself in his fallacies by the third or forth paragraph. Rather than attacking private ownership of guns, we need to promote private ownership of guns as a means of fighting terrorism.
Bill
All the more reason for the general public to be well armed. The police and military can't be everywhere at once. The general public can be and is.
The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.
Look on the bright side, they are at long last admitting that there is a "right to keep and bear arms" and that that Constitution protects it. That the purpose of the right is defend the country and to keep the government in check. He even implies that the Constitution should be amended to adapt to changed circumstances.
Now they would have us "give up essential liberty for some temporary safety". They would disarm the general public just when there are Islamic crazies in the land wanting to kill anyone they can.
So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.
They ignore that AK's and RPGs for that matter, are cheap on the world market and terrorists need not buy them here or if they wanted to buy them here that they do so through legitimate sources. Guns are easier to smuggle than drugs. Gun parts easier still.
All I have to say is that I'm not a white supremacist or a nazi, and that I will not give up my firearms. It won't be from my cold dead hands. It just flat out won't happen. Period, end of story.
I never did understand that logic. You are in imminent danger, chaos is about to break loose in your midst, so give us your guns to assure that you can't protect yourself.
Guns don't cause havoc. Lawless people using guns cause havoc. Good people using guns have at least a chance of mitigating havoc, and there are more good people than bad.
And don't forget the futile attempt by the people at the Alamo to rise up against their government armed as they were with just their handguns, rifles, and Bowie knives. There's no way they could stand up to the might of the Imperial Mexican Army. How dare they think their actions could influence the destiny of a thing called "Texas" since they all were killed there.
I oppose public ownership of guns. All guns should be in private hands.
If some looney Mohammedan cuts loose with a pistol in the mall, I'm not only hoping for an armed Citizen to take him out, I'm COUNTING on it.
Indeed.
The answer to the author of this breathtakingly ignorant piece is simply "no." When one is threatened by people with guns the appropriate response is decidedly not to voluntarily give up one's own means of self-defense. It's to shoot back. And we do that. And quite frankly, we do it quite a bit better than those who threaten us. And we're going to continue to do that.
Jeff, did you know this? Sounds like TC is ripping off your ideas from "Dragon's Fury".
I agree completely. Reconsider old policies in light of the new facts. Conclude that nationwide concealed carry is an absolute necessity. Perhaps even conclude that non-gun-owning Americans should be encouraged to take up the practice.
"Reconsider the value of public gun ownership?" Definitely. It's value has gone up substantially since 9/11.
So basically, this guy says we are susceptable to terrorists attacking with firearms and his solution is to disarm us??? Is this guy smoking guano or somthing?
There is no way in hell I will give up my right to keep and bear arms. ESPECIALLY if there is a risk of terrorists making attacks with firearms. I want every chance of fighting back that I can get.
If terrorists are amassing arms, then any sane citizen of the US should be doing the exact same. It's not like the police or military is able to protect us if an attack does occur. Nothing against them but all they'll be able to do is count bodies and shell casings.
Some people shouldn't breed... the author of that toilet paper is one of them.
Mike
I'm sure there are plenty of cases where good work by our security agencies has thwarted enough terrorist threats that if we knew, we'd all be huddled in a corner of our gas-proof rooms quivering and crying. But what we do know about are the many instances where the public has taken security into their own hands starting with the "Let's roll" heroes on the 4th plane. I have personal knowledge of at least one in-flight incident where a foreign-looking and somewhat inebriated airline passenger tried to light a cigarette and was quickly subdued by his fellow passengers. (of course, I'm assuming it was because of the flame and not their fear of second-hand smoke).
No, anybody taking a close look at the world after 9-11 would be arming the 95% of us that understands we're the first line of defense (ok, maybe last line of defense is more appropriate). The hand-wringers are so afraid of a would-be terrorist getting weapons through legal means that they forget about that lesson. Oh yeah, they also forget that terrorists aren't adverse to using illegal channels.