Giving up your freedoms--the argument "for"

[Finch]

Uh, you seem to reiterating my point. The folks on those planes outnumbered the T's by at least 10 to 1. No firearms should have been necessary with those physical odds, but the terrorists were banking on there being no one with the will to resist. Thanks for the affirmation.

Of course I am affirming your statement, it was this statement that the bulk of my response was aimed at:

Why isn’t it obvious that restrictions on our liberty were what allowed the terrorists to succeed on September 11th and on so many other occasions?

It alludes to the fact that we are not allowed to bring items such as knives and guns on board a plane, and that is why the hijackers succeded. It is not restrictions, but apathy.

 

[saltydog]

I always ask people like that, why if we are serious about security is our southern border wide open?

Best question I have ever heard asked! Why is that?

Serious = BS

 

[Sistema1927]

I find it extremly sad that out of four planes, only one of them tried to take action. So with a really rough estimate, only 25% of Americans are willing to fight against homicidal attackers armed with three inch blades (assuming my 4 beers and counting math is correct).

What bluster!

[sarcasm]It is only too bad that you weren't on one of those other three planes. If so, maybe several thousand would still be alive today [/sarcasm]

Prior to 9/11 nobody had ever turned an airplane into a missile. It was only after news of this happening reached the ears of the passengers on flight 93 that a new era in air travel emerged. I can promise you that 100% of US flights will result in the passengers rising up to overpower any hijackers NOW.

The original point to which you responded was that limitations on our freedoms led to the events of 9/11, and that is true. Why shouldn't I, a law-abiding United States citizen, be allowed to carry my firearm on an airline flight?

 

[Thin Black Line]

One "nuclear event", for example, and our people will turn, unhesitatingly, to a dictator/strongman.

It wouldn't have to be a nuke to do this. Another depression, an epidemic,
etc. Significantly lower the standard of living and people will be crying for
the fedgov "to do something." Non-racist fascism in practice would be little
different from the old soviet union --except we'd have better access to
flat-screen TVs. Such a system when properly functioning would still have
an offically sanctioned, though not expressly condoned, amount of release
valve hedonistic activities.

For example, the old soviet union had plenty of "free sex", but pornography
in the media was restricted. As time passed, the US caught up with the
free sex attitude and the former soviets (russia) caught up with the porno.

At the same time, global corporations have gained increasing control of
central economic planning within each country as the russians in essence
caught up with the West and stopped top down central planning within the
government. They, like the West, now have more of the so-called public
private partnerships.

People give up their freedoms everyday. I think it was Ben Franklin who
spoke of trading freedom for security.