British hotels are vulnerable to Mumbai-style attacks, anti-terrorist officers warn
Who would have thought that a free society was vulnerable to hordes of maniacs firing automatic weapons?
Rather more importantly, what can a free society do about such vulnerability without not being a free society? Might it not be better to suck up the vulnerability but remain free?
4 responses so far ↓
1 Pat // Mar 21, 2009 at 10:06 am
Well if the free society felt its free citizens (those of good character) could be trusted with firearms, then someone on the spot could fire back. It wouldn’t stop such outrages- but it would limit the effects.
2 MikeinAppalachia // Mar 21, 2009 at 8:15 pm
A trite but telling comment from many USA citizens-”The constitution wasn’t intended to be a suicide pact”.
3 G Orwell // Mar 21, 2009 at 10:45 pm
“Who would have thought that a free society was vulnerable to hordes of maniacs firing automatic weapons?”
Not all free societies are vulnerables to hordes of Muslim maniacs. Like e.g. Poland because fortunately they (unlike us) did not have large scale Muslim immigration. The more we, the more vulnerable we will be.
4 Monty // Mar 22, 2009 at 12:50 am
I’m with Pat here. It is only because our freedoms have been compromised and restricted that we are vulnerable in the first place.
If you can shoot him right back, that is ultimate freedom. And not just for you, for all the folk he would have killed next.
Leave a Comment