Because I'm confused about something, and I want to make sure I have it right in my head.
Adam is asking, "How many terrorists has the TSA caught?" and when they can't answer or answer "zero", we are espousing this as the reason we don't need the TSA.
Yet, months ago people were arguing about the attempts and attacks on 2nd amendment rights, and when pressed in to a corner one of the responses on why we needed guns for home protection was that the thief would not know if someone was armed, so therefore wouldn't want to rob a place if he wasn't sure. And yet, we could have had someone from the "other side" like Adam, asking us, "How many burglars have you shot in your own home with an AR-15?" and most of us would have had to say, "Zero". Would that have been counted as a "win" for the opposition?
Guess what I'm saying here is:
TSA's presence is to people being unsure if they can get through security without getting caught, as having an AR-15 in your home is to burglars not wanting to break in to your house so they won't get shot.
Does that make sense? Don't get me wrong I hate the TSA. I'm simply trying to find the logic here, so that I don't get blindsided by someone who has the argument that the TSA's position isn't so much to catch Terrorists as much as it is to Deter them. Just like owning a gun and protecting your property isn't so much to go around killing people as it is to Deter people from trying to hurt you or your family.
Please help me find the flaw in the argument here. I realize it puts me as playing devils advocate, but I'd like to make sure I have it right in my head.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: