reply to post by greencmp
The threat of real terrorism in the USA is small, on that much we agree! So small is that threat, in fact, that the vast number of dollars spent on
the national security of the US seems somewhat ridiculous and grand, when placed beside it. Of course, the NSA, and homeland security do not just deal
with straight up terror threats, but all and any threat to the continued existence of the States in their current format, so the cost starts to look
half way sensible from that angle.
However, the terror threat to the actual people of the United States, on their own soil is pretty damned minimal. The main focus of the world wide
terror networks ( which were the progeny of organisations which are STILL being funded and " handled" by the US intelligence community by the way)
seems to be on attacking allies of the west, as well as their business interests all over the place. That's how they are rolling for now anyway, and
as previously mentioned, there are vast numbers of dollars worth of the shiniest, most cannon like weapons, held by the coldest, most dangerous
bastards ever born in the USA, defending your people from those threats.
You need a gun because your fellow Americans are as potentially dangerous to you as some fellows from Mogadishu have recently proven to be to the
patrons of a shopping mall in Kenya over the last couple of days. Let's face it, if you place he number of people killed in the USA by terrorism,
while on US soil, over the last ten years, next to the murder figures for that same period, you might get a sense of perspective on that issue.
The other thing is, that if the law enforcement community started offering this specialised carry status out, what's to stop a sleeper from gaining
that kind of thing, and then be walking about armed, not only with weapons , but an ironclad reason to be carrying them? Please, make no mistake, I
believe that the best thing about your nation is the right to bear arms. However, adding this concealed carry thing under an anti- terror banner is
unnecessary, and would prove ineffective in combatting the threats faced, and may even increase the risk, by creating security holes.
Think also, about this. If terrorists took over a government building in the US, and a whole hell of a lot of the staff were open carrying to combat
them, in a pinch, how would SWAT or a Homeland Security team be able to tell at a glance who was causing the trouble? It's not as if a firefight is
an ideal circumstance in which to interview someone about their credentials after all!