nobody wrote:

Your handgun serves only one purpose: to kill or seriously injur a human. Same
with machine guns. If you own such a deadly weapon for self defense, the fact
remains that if you must use the gun, it will be to either kill or severely
injur the person you believe is going to attack you. It is normal that a
government woudl want to verify your motives for the gun and also test your
ability to judge whether pulling the trigger is necessary or not.

I'll pass on the gun debate.

Suffice to say that because guns are of no interest to you
does not mean someone else can have a valid interest, and use
of them.

I find it interesting that you feel a deep background check
is OK for someone wishing to own a firearm, because "it's only
used for killing", yet fingerprinting someone coming into the
US, for anti-terrorist reasons (also an activity largely
defined as killing and injuring someone) seems to be a problem.

Or do you not have problems with the fingerprinting?

When a tourist enters the country, it isn't the fingerprints that are
important, it is what is in his luggage. Unless, of course, the deadly weapons
he will use to cause harm to your country are freely available in your country.

No, it's the terrorist himself that is important, thus the
need for effective identity recognition.

Please note that there have been plenty of terrorists in the USA, especially
the ones who go in a shooting rampage in schools etc. All done with "made in
the USA" all over (the person, the victims and the weapon).

Yes. So what?

The thing is that no matter how strick you become at airports, terrorists will
always find a way around. You cannot stop a determined terrorist. And there
are many terrorists you don't know about (like the guy who blew up the
Oklahoma city building).

Thus the reasons for increased security measures.

The real "war on terrorism" is stopping whatever a countrie does that
irritates people so much that they take to terror to fight back.
Unformtunatly, for short term politicians, the results of such a policy don't
come soon enough. But it is the only way to really stop it.

You mean appeasement? History doesn't show that technique
to be especially effective.


SMH