Yes, I agreed. People would have perceived it as a colossal security failure. They would have cited it as a reason for gun and explosive control. They would hav

Yes, I agreed. People would have perceived it as a colossal security failure. They would have cited it as a reason for gun and explosive control. They would have done and said a lot of things because there are a lot of people who can think and say things. There are people who will think the opposite too. And some jousting off in every other direction. My original point got a little lost by my second post. That there are angry people shouting about something doesn't mean they're right. Being loud shouldn't earn you opinion being rebroadcast, but that's exactly what today's social media does. And it's what the traditional media did before it. Sell engagement through outrage. If we want to have qualitative conversations about what homeland security really looks like to stop an attack like the one here —that nobody is even suggesting was planned— I'm not sure people will be so "absolutely, obviously" on one side. Only once you have those conversations can you reasonably barter with the limits of rights.