Mumbai

"But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
More importantly, "an armed society is a polite society."

Would an attack like this be possible in the United States? In every large metro area, handguns are almost universally outlawed. Even as a holder of a CCW permit in PA, I cannot (concealed or otherwise) carry in Philadelphia. So the answer, could it happen here, is "Hell, I'm surprised it hasn't... yet."

Same applies to D.C., Chicago, all of California, Miami, Baltimore, NYFC, every city in Texas!, Washington, Oregon, All of Illinois, etc. These places are litterally shooting galleries for terrorists. Same applies to our "gun free" school zones, where we send our children to be completely defenseless against any and all attackers (No, I don't think arming kids unsupervised is a good idea. Arming the faculty and staff, however, IS a good idea. No more Columbines. (That was a gun free zone too.) No More Va Tech.

Now imagine this happened here, in your home town. Which would be scarier... a terror attack against people staying in hotels in downtown Chicago, DC, or San Francisco, or a terror attack involving single gunmen attacking 20 or so elementary schools in Podunk, USA? or shopping malls, churches, or even polling places?

Imagine the death toll if one person with an AK shouted allhu akhbar and went running into your local elementary school? How many children would die before he was stopped by the police? How long would it take them to get there, and how long would it take them to take action?

Now imagine this happened at 10, 20, or 100 elementary schools simultaneously. That's how terror works. You don't attack the hard points, you go to the soft underbelly, the least defended targets.

No one is responsible for your security, except you. The police are paid to uphold laws, and stop crime when they see it, but they are NOT responsible for your safety or security. You are not a vigilante if you maintain security of your person even through the use of violence. You are a citizen. You have a right to be secure in your person, in your house, in your place of work. The constitution says that you cannot be searched without a warrant, or in some circumstances probable cause. That is the way our founders told the government they were establishing to keep their greasy paws off of us and out of our lives. But it doesn't mean that it only extends to the government. It means that you have a right, an unalienable right, to your personal security.

When crime happens, YOU have an obligation as a citizen to stop that crime. You are empowered to do so by citizen's arrest, and if violence is used or even threatened, you have a right to protect yourself through the use of violence.

If this is not the law of the land where you live, you need to move, because you don't live in America.

Really, can anyone think of any redeeming reason to live in a large metro area? Anything that makes it "worth it?"

--Chuck

When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away.