Sunday, April 21, 2013

Guns and terrorism

Is it my imagination, or do many of those who supported gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook are complacent about the laws we have in place to combat terrorism while those who are complacent about gun control feel strongly more needs to be done to combat terrorism.

Both sides feel justified in restricting civil liberties to combat what they regard as an exigent requirement to protect the public and both sides seem to view their opponents as evil, foolish and in the thrall of some special interest.

1 comment:

  1. Well said. I was very discouraged that the same group of people who were horrified at the idea of only being allowed to use their high-power assault rifles 10 shots at a time (or whatever) not only passed a bill protecting companies from legal action for sharing people's private information with the federal government, but were also falling over themselves in eagerness to demand that an American citizen, who attacked no military bases, be treated as an enemy combatant and his constitutional rights be stripped away. Why is using an assault rifle considered criminal but using a bomb is considered terrorism, or even an act of war?

    At least I've realized that despite the many disappointments of President Obama's presidency, the one bright side is that John McCain didn't become president.