On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 02:34:14 -0500, you wrote:
>Daniel Terp (or more like, TWERP) wrote:
OOOOH! that's clever. Last time someone tried that one I was eight,
and she was six.
>> And if every single person at the World Trade Center had been armed to
>> the teeth, would it have helped?
>
>Nope. But IF law abiding American citizens with carry permits HAD been
>allowed to be on that flight, I'd wager that a whole lot of people,
>including some of your friends there in NYC, might just have lived to
>see the sun set tonight.
There were four of them on one flight, and had the passengers been
allowed to carry guns, I assure you the terrorists would have had guns
as well. And they showed they obviously had no fear of dying.
Most likely they would have simply shot all the passengers right at
the start. They were going to kill them anyway. One good burst with an
UZI and your dreams of saving the world are over.
>But thanks to bleeding heart liberal
>assholes like you who want to disarm everyone except your chosen
>"professionals", more Americans died today than since the Battle of
>Antietam, and people like you who push to disarm the public have their
>blood on your hands as well.
Who said anything about disarming anyone? I said that armed civilians
are no match for a highly trained suicide squad, that's hardly
advocating disarmament. Hitler tried arming civilians to protect
Berlin against the Russians, and look where it got him.
Fighting terrorists takes more than a big gun and a big mouth. It
takes a top level intelligence network with satellites, code breakers
and supercomputers. You got that kind of stuff? The Military does.
No, they're not everywhere, and Patton didn't win every battle. But if
I had to chose between them and you, it wouldn't be a contest.
>> Arming amateurs will only waste ammunition and cause more problems.
>
>Cause more problems for who? Potential terrorists, who have to think
>twice, because they never can tell which of their "victims" are going to
>send them to Allah before they are ready?
Frankly, if you think you can out-shoot a car bomb, you're welcome to
try. But exactly how are you going to identify the "potential
terrorists"? Just shoot everyone with dark skin?
If someone is willing to strap twenty pounds of Semtex to their waist
and detonate it, or pilot an airliner into a building, do you really
think your .45 is going to have them quaking in their boots?
And if you do find one and kill him, what's to stop them from just
sending twenty more? You gonna kill every Arab and Palestinian in the
Middle East? You got that much ammo?
You're using 19th century tactics for a 21st century battle. These
guys don't walk up wearing an official terrorist uniform and challenge
you to a fire fight. You never see them. You have no time to shoot.
You're standing there and the bomb goes "boom!", that's it.
The MV of the new war isn't a Jeep or a tank, it's a Ryder truck
filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel.
They don't care which of their "victims" are going to waste them,
they've made up their minds to die for Allah anyway. Shoot them and
they just get to heaven faster.
Ever been to Israel? Guns everywhere, even kids have them. Every cop
has a semi automatic. Military in the street. Random searches,
roadblocks, interrogation. Stuff even guys like you wouldn't want
here. And still terrorism is a constant threat. If you could just
shoot them, don't you think they would all be dead by now?
>One pissed-off Southerner ready to avenge his Yankee neighbors- despite
>the cries of the bleeding heart liberal scum
Liberal scum? My sister will laugh at that one. She calls me the Rush
Limbaugh of the family.
I'm no liberal, I just appreciate the situation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:58:58 PDT