Scenarios like a large-scale, disbursed, terrorist attack is not something that conventional 'protective' services can manage. In such a case, people will have to defend themselves. Many politicians who want to prevent people from having the means to defend themselves might claim it is to protect the public, but the truth is it makes us more vulnerable.
The persistence in which they call for general disarmament, and obviousness of the increase in vulnerability to attacks, makes it hard to come to any other conclusion that they want a more vulnerable society. This leads to the uncomfortable question of 'Why?'
Another great debate Sir.
Scenarios like a large-scale, disbursed, terrorist attack is not something that conventional 'protective' services can manage. In such a case, people will have to defend themselves. Many politicians who want to prevent people from having the means to defend themselves might claim it is to protect the public, but the truth is it makes us more vulnerable.
The persistence in which they call for general disarmament, and obviousness of the increase in vulnerability to attacks, makes it hard to come to any other conclusion that they want a more vulnerable society. This leads to the uncomfortable question of 'Why?'