Can we stop terrorist bombings?

Friends,

CNN reported on why they thought terror bombings were low over the last decade.

You can google for that on your own.

But, we can alter the chemical makeup of fertilizer and reduce the fertilizer’s ability to explode.

I guessed very well, and even found where scientists have already done just that:

New Fertilizer.

OK. Why does the government strip search American Citizens (traditional American Citizens) instead of stopping the ability to make home-made bombs?

Control?

Maybe, maybe not.

But, I am concerned about how slowly our government acts to slow down the ability of terrorists to make bombs when compared to how quickly they moved to strip search us and video tape our movements.

Can we restrict terrorists without restricting our freedoms? What do you think?

Ghost.

This entry was posted in blog, blogging, news, politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Can we stop terrorist bombings?

  1. Steve Newbauer says:

    Most certainly there are a whole lot of things that could be done and should be done, but it ain’t gonna happen. We need to remember who is running things and what their agenda is. The who is the Illuminati & Satan … although ultimately God is in control and carrying out His plan. We are living in the End Times of bible prophecy and all that we see going on is leading up to the soon return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Most frightening times lie ahead for those on planet earth. Men’s hearts will fail them in fear God’s word tells us. They will shake their fists at God in anger for allowing this, but they only have themselves to blame.

  2. Steve Newbauer says:

    As a post script (I failed to include above) … This is not just what I think, but rather it is what I know. God is not a liar and His word has forewarned us and explained in some detail as to what the future holds.

  3. Jeppi says:

    It is hard to restrict terrorists without undermining the freedom of citizens within the country. More restrictions and governmental actions is, as I see it, even more scary. All the sudden the government can decide who is a terrorist and who isn’t. I’m talking about the worst of worlds here but as long as people are in charge misuse and exploitation is never far from being a reality.

    Despite this I think a short-term “solution” would be to become stricter when it comes to selling chemicals used in home-bomb making. Also, proper gun laws is never a bad idea which Australia is a very good example of. When they acquired proper gun laws all fatalities associated with guns fell. Long-term I think the only solution is good and fair education. Leave the indoctrination out of the system and instead teach children to be good citizens that care for each other.

    • Jeppi,

      Thank you for your comment!

      I disagree on your Australia example. When I researched Australia on the gun issue, I was appalled by their murder and suicide rates.

      I agree we should teach the children what it meant to be an American citizen.

      Ghost.

      • Jeppi says:

        This publication shows a quite promising trend when it comes to the effect of the gun laws: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269/view%20paper.html and according to UNODC Australian total-firearm related death rate in 2008 (per 100 000 individuals in one year) was 1.05, homicide 0.09, suicide 0.79. In the same categories US had 10.20, 3.20, 6.30. While gun laws might not restrict international terrorism it at least makes it harder for domestic terrorism to happen, such as school shootings.

      • Jeppi,

        Thank you for your comment.

        I think if you will check the statistics, Australia has 6 times the number of suicides that America has.

        Violence traded for violence is not the answer I am looking for.

        Is that the answer you are looking for?

        Ghost.

      • Jeppi says:

        Could you give me a link to the statistics you’re referring to? If you use the statistics by WHO (“Suicides per 100 000 people per year”) U.S average is 12.0 people and Australia’s average is 9.7 people. Therefore I find it the sources saying that Australia’s suicide rate would be 6 times higher than U.S extremely questionable.

        Also, even if they have a slight higher suicide rate I don’t see why that would matter? Gun laws worked well in Australia, why would it be so bad for U.S to give them a try?

      • Actually, gun laws do not seem to work well in Australia. I will have to dig that data back up. As I am still trying to dig up my previous data.

        Why would it be so good for USA to ‘give it a try?’

      • Jeppi,

        I must tilt on this one. That means I must concede your point.

        After an hour and a half of searching, I found a previous reference, but I could not find my statistics linked to an external document. And google was not returning the kind of data it had when I originally searched on this ….

        Americans use firearms over two million times each year to defend themselves. So, why would it be ‘good?’

        Ghost.

  4. Jeppi says:

    What could they possibly lose? Isn’t a decrease in violence a good thing? Less guns mean less gun deaths. Less gun violence means safer streets and cities. If citizens in a western country are so concerned about their safety that they feel the need to carry guns, I’d say the country is in some major trouble. As you said yourself, “Violence traded for violence is not the answer I am looking for.”

    • Jeppi, Thank you for your comment.

      I have to think about my reply.

      First, my question in this blog was why we can strip search some people, but we cannot restrict access to bomb making components?

      Then, I would agree with limited gun control. I think I blogged about this yesterday, liberals and the mentally ill should not have access to guns, cars, or bomb making materials.

      And cell phones in cars should be made inoperable as they travel. Except 911.

      That would lessen violent death by 50 to 80%.

      Let’s get a constitutional amendment. Will you vote for it?

      Ghost.

      • Jeppi says:

        That can not have been a serious suggestion?

      • You want me to take your suggestion that we limit my Constitutional rights?

        Maybe you should read this blog post: Ban water and guns.

        You see the true murder rate is not that high. Deaths from drowning are …. But, you want to focus on the rights my ancestors fought and died for.

        Why?

        I am comfortable defending myself if someone breaks in my house. And that is better than waiting the six minute average response time for a police officer.

        If you want to restrict my rights, given by God and the Constitution, how about serious discussion?

      • Jeppi says:

        But, would it not be better to live in a country where you wouldn’t have to own a gun in order to feel like you can defend yourself properly?

        Comparing water and guns? Unnecessary. Water goes beyond us mere humans, we can not do much about it (else than teach people to swim and make beaches safer, hope for rain etc.). Guns however were created by men to kill men. There is a distinction.

      • True, there is a distinction.

        They both kill humans in large numbers. But, no one pulls the trigger on water.

        OK, I live part time in Ukraine. I don’t have a gun, and I have never felt threatened ….

        But, it is a different culture, and they have guns and cops everywhere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s