...
Ultimate Member
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/16/hotels-warned-mumbai-style-terror-threat/
I keep seeing these BS speculative news stories from many different sources. Essentially they are saying some terrorists are going to attack "soft targets." Which means the terrorists are coming to shoot up a mall or something like that.
Well what if that happens? Ban all guns? No, the SWAT team or some other group is going to come and kill the terrorists with guns.
So why isn't the government saying, "the terrorists are coming, gun up America." Our troops are spread thin all over the world, so why not tell the citizens to defend themselves? Instead the government is doing just the opposite and restricting our ability to respond to terrorist attacks on soft targets. The government or someone in the media obviously knows something if they keep publishing these stories.
I want to know
- Isn't the most cost effective defense to terrorist attacks on soft targets an armed population?
- If you have a handgun and can stop a "terrorist" on the spot, wouldn't that make more sense?
- what is your opinion on these stories? Is it just me or is the media hyping this too much and providing ridiculous solutions such as:
*Have the TSA at the mall
*Body scanners everywhere
*Give up all your semi-autos so the terrorists don't get you with them
I keep seeing these BS speculative news stories from many different sources. Essentially they are saying some terrorists are going to attack "soft targets." Which means the terrorists are coming to shoot up a mall or something like that.
Well what if that happens? Ban all guns? No, the SWAT team or some other group is going to come and kill the terrorists with guns.
So why isn't the government saying, "the terrorists are coming, gun up America." Our troops are spread thin all over the world, so why not tell the citizens to defend themselves? Instead the government is doing just the opposite and restricting our ability to respond to terrorist attacks on soft targets. The government or someone in the media obviously knows something if they keep publishing these stories.
I want to know
- Isn't the most cost effective defense to terrorist attacks on soft targets an armed population?
- If you have a handgun and can stop a "terrorist" on the spot, wouldn't that make more sense?
- what is your opinion on these stories? Is it just me or is the media hyping this too much and providing ridiculous solutions such as:
*Have the TSA at the mall
*Body scanners everywhere
*Give up all your semi-autos so the terrorists don't get you with them