There Really is a Terrorism Threat in America (and it is Small) But We All Can Help

Wouldn't it be logical for everyone to go down to their respective police stations and ask their police chiefs to get or convert their licenses or permits to carry concealed?

Despite the false flags and coercive manipulation, I feel I must remind everyone that there really is a threat of terrorism in America, we should be ready to act at a moments notice to save lives if it ever happens. I'm not kidding either.

That is why we need to be at the ready. If the fees are too high, we can 'lobby' at the town hall until we get to speak our piece and, if necessary, have a referendum to change the way the process is handled. We could put forward a proposal which encourages the lawful and appropriate awarding of licenses or permits at a reasonable cost and with no undue delay.

I believe it is also a first step in the process of returning to a free and open society. It really is astounding how well behaved people become when they are frequently reminded to be courteous to one another because everyone else is just being so darned nice. It really is tough not to catch that civic feeling of comradery.

Indeed, I believe we would see an immediate decrease in crime across the spectrum as well as a dramatic decrease in depression. I would bet the quality of my life on it.

reply to post by greencmp


Speaking for myself, I just got mine renewed for 5 years. Our Sheriff's also took the card issuing directly so it has no crossover to the REAL ID scam they have running. $50, for a 5 year renewal? You can't beat that. It doesn't run too much more for the first time through and a skills test with both automatic and revolver required for demonstrated proficiency on a shooting range is taken quite seriously. That's atop the classroom on the law and basically, the 100 different ways not to shoot and why shooting is a really really bad idea. lol.... They train the opposite of what many people think.

S/F!

reply to post by greencmp


I think you just made a wiggly argument that needs to be distilled down to a hill we can try to charge. I'm proposing your argument is, "We should all get guns because terrorism."

There are plenty of reasons to get a gun for the house, or to want to carry one on your person. Terrorism is about the weakest argument I can think of. Stronger arguments include:

• For defense of life (yours or others)
• For defense of your property
• Against the state (which I think is ridiculous)

Arguments against this hill I'm putting you on include but are not limited to:

• I can kill you with a rake.
• Your kid is going to kill some other kid with your gun.
• By the time you undo your trigger lock in the middle of the night, your assailant will have already killed you.
• When you're a registered gun owner, people will come to your house *to get your gun*.

Another ridiculous argument to counter your ridiculous argument: Many more people are killed by lightning every year than are killed by terrorists. So I would beg you to not have a gun, because they are made of metal bits which conduct electricity.

Thank you for your cooperation.

michael22
reply to post by greencmp

 

I think you just made a wiggly argument that needs to be distilled down to a hill we can try to charge. I'm proposing your argument is, "We should all get guns because terrorism."

There are plenty of reasons to get a gun for the house, or to want to carry one on your person. Terrorism is about the weakest argument I can think of. Stronger arguments include:

• For defense of life (yours or others)
• For defense of your property
• Against the state (which I think is ridiculous)

Arguments against this hill I'm putting you on include but are not limited to:

• I can kill you with a rake.
• Your kid is going to kill some other kid with your gun.
• By the time you undo your trigger lock in the middle of the night, your assailant will have already killed you.
• When you're a registered gun owner, people will come to your house *to get your gun*.

Another ridiculous argument to counter your ridiculous argument: Many more people are killed by lightning every year than are killed by terrorists. So I would beg you to not have a gun, because they are made of metal bits which conduct electricity.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yes, Madam Former Secretary, I can see this has you upset.

Those are very good reasons to get a concealed carried license. I will add the additional arguments to the case supporting my position, thanks.

Most of your counter arguments seem to be manageable through proper training and safety procedures (or readiness procedures). As long as you don't illegally publish my name in the paper so criminals can get the list it should be semi-safe. However, since that possibility exists, I think it appropriate not to have a central registry of gun owners names.

There isn't much I can do about lightning at the moment but, I will get back to you on that. I would agree on the face of it, waving your gun around in the air at the top of a hill on a stormy night should be discouraged.

reply to post by greencmp


What are you saying?

You know what's funny about the whole Gun's keep crime down.

According to our just-released Crime in the United States, 2011 report, the estimated number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement (1,203,564) decreased for the fifth year in a row, while the estimated number of property crimes reported to law enforcement (9,063,173) decreased for the ninth year in a row.

FBI Crime Stats

So crime IS actually on the decrease, but when it comes to guns, less people are buying them, yet the number of guns is going up. Which means that people who do love guns, are buying more and people who don't, aren't suddenly thinking they need one to protect themselves.

Crime rates are always decreasing, year over year, and it's not because of guns.

~Tenth

Yes, Madam Former Secretary, I can see this has you upset.

Those are very good reasons to get a concealed carried license. I will add the additional arguments to the case supporting my position, thanks.

Most of your counter arguments seem to be manageable through proper training and safety procedures (or readiness procedures). As long as you don't illegally publish my name in the paper so criminals can get the list it should be semi-safe. However, since that possibility exists, I think it appropriate not to have a central registry of gun owners names.

There isn't much I can do about lightning at the moment but, I will get back to you on that. I would agree on the face of it, waving your gun around in the air at the top of a hill on a stormy night should

reply to post by greencmp


I'm glad you're espousing proper training and safety procedures. Honest question: what "proper training and safety procedures" would you mandate or recommend (and please specify) preceding a concealed-carry permit?

I like the idea, but it sounds like you're introducing some role for the state in this, and I just want you to tease that out a bit for me.

By my lights, I think someone should have a black belt in a marital art before you get a crack at walking around the mall with a piece on you. I can tell you, it's been really instructive to get to a point where you know what you're doing with force. And that means you don't use it when you get twitchy.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

What are you saying?

For the moment, I am saying that I think we should all recognize the threat of terrorism in America.

Given that threat, I think it is prudent for all citizens to be prepared to defend against it by going through proper procedures and obtaining concealed carry licenses and or permits to carry.

michael22

Yes, Madam Former Secretary, I can see this has you upset.

Those are very good reasons to get a concealed carried license. I will add the additional arguments to the case supporting my position, thanks.

Most of your counter arguments seem to be manageable through proper training and safety procedures (or readiness procedures). As long as you don't illegally publish my name in the paper so criminals can get the list it should be semi-safe. However, since that possibility exists, I think it appropriate not to have a central registry of gun owners names.

There isn't much I can do about lightning at the moment but, I will get back to you on that. I would agree on the face of it, waving your gun around in the air at the top of a hill on a stormy night should

reply to post by greencmp

 

I'm glad you're espousing proper training and safety procedures. Honest question: what "proper training and safety procedures" would you mandate or recommend (and please specify) preceding a concealed-carry permit?

I like the idea, but it sounds like you're introducing some role for the state in this, and I just want you to tease that out a bit for me.

By my lights, I think someone should have a black belt in a marital art before you get a crack at walking around the mall with a piece on you. I can tell you, it's been really instructive to get to a point where you know what you're doing with force. And that means you don't use it when you get twitchy.

I think it goes without saying that a user of any tool should be well-versed in its proper handling.

Many towns have shooting ranges and a variety of resources to assist with that training. In some cases, people cannot afford the cost of the training regimen that is available. In those cases, I think experts from the local community should volunteer to train their neighbors in said proper handling and that the training they receive voluntarily should be recognized as sufficient to grant the licenses and or permits to carry concealed.

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!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I wonder if those statistics are a reflection of the fact that guns sales have been way up for the past five years and have a rapid peak whenever there is talk of gun grabbing laws getting traction in the media?

reply to post by greencmp


However legitimate a real terror threat is in the United States, it's much like the boy who cried wolf as far as a large group of the population is concerned. By the NSA, Department of Homeland Security and the rest of three letter agencies insinuating in both actions and through words that the very citizens of the US are the real threat, or real terrorists as it were, the much more immediate problem and larger threat then becomes that of the government itself and not terrorism.

Helious
reply to post by greencmp

 

However legitimate a real terror threat is in the United States, it's much like the boy who cried wolf as far as a large group of the population is concerned. By the NSA, Department of Homeland Security and the rest of three letter agencies insinuating in both actions and through words that the very citizens of the US are the real threat, or real terrorists as it were, the much more immediate problem and larger threat then becomes that of the government itself and not terrorism.

edit on 22-9-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

That is another very important point, widespread adoption of carrying concealed firearms also has a powerful deterrent effect to the viability of the police state.

Here is an interesting discussion about guns in general that may be of interest to many:

After Words: Emily Miller, "Emily Gets Her Gun...But Obama Wants to Take Yours," hosted by Craig Whitney, author of "Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment"