There are inadvertent crashes of automobiles every day across the nation, yet people still drive. There are inadvertent drownings in 3 inches of water of infants, yet people still have children and people still bathe. There are inadvertent chokings on food every day, yet people still yet. Your argument does not hold water.
When I was taught how to handle a firearm, one thing that was drummed into MY head was "Simply having a firearm does not make you Rambo or invincible."
No, but the terrorists most likely would not have careened those airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon. There are also special bullets designed to puncture human tissue but not airplane bulkheads.
Ah yes, I was wondering when you were going to get around to this one. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty. Sorry to hear about the country you apparently hail from.
Well, if you're a cop and you're told to be on the lookout for a white guy 5'10" who just robbed a bank, are you going to spend time looking closely at black men? I didn't think so. It isn't attempting to prove anyone guilty, it's vigilance. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Maybe you should get that through your head.
Even Superman wouldn't have been able to foresee and prevent at least four separate hijackings, all on the same day, all unexpectedly, all employing a devastating new type of attack on American property and people. 9/11 was the bellwether of a new type of war. And, sitting back and attacking the people fighting that war like you're doing isn't helping us win the war.
Sorry, but criticism of the government at any time is valid. I fully support President Bush and the Armed Forces in the War on Terror, but others things I do disagree with. The TSA comes to mind and so does the Patriot Act.
If you (and the LP) have all the answers to terrorism as you claim, then you should either go to work for the federal government and start enacting your wonderful ideas, or start garnering more than .03 percent of the vote in national elections and do it via the ballot box. Until you do, you in particular and libertarians in general remain the crazy uncle in the attic of American politics.
How about if the Republicrats and the Democrans loosen the grip they have on the news media? Not allowing the Libertarian and Green Party candidates air time during the presidential/vice-presidential debates was a nice way to suppress others' freedom of speech. As long as Americans believe that there are only two political parties, as you Repressivecans prefer to keep it, no other political party will gain much influence. Pretty slick trick they've pulled.
What "control" are you referring to? IIRC, the President couldn't even get CBS or CNN to cover his last prime-time news conference live. The news media is **supposedly** private enterprise, and not government-controlled in any way. Are you seriously suggesting that government assume control of the media and mandate this? Because that is what it would take.
I thought you guys hated the concept of government control of anything.
As long as Americans believe that there are only two political parties, as you Repressivecans prefer to keep it, no other political party will gain much influence.
So the major parties are keeping people from using the Internet, buying books and magazines, going to political rallies, and reading newspapers containing articles and explanations about the viewpoints of third party candidates. Why, we've even somehow prevented people from voting for third party candidates in the privacy of the voting booth. Total, complete censorship of a free press - what a neat trick we've pulled off! Buahahaha ...
(rubs hands together and does a happydance, but is puzzled how Republican Central Command managed to let this guy's FreeRepublic posts slip past the blockade. A little birdie just told me that somebody's going to be spending some quality time tonight on the Tower of Power in the dungeon over this disgrace)