Yes. It's hard. But asking such questions without context is bullshit. We've had bombings and mass murders throughout our country's history. Hell, the country

Yes. It's hard. But asking such questions without context is bullshit. We've had bombings and mass murders throughout our country's history. Hell, the country was founded on a tax revolt that ended up in a civil war (a huge chunk of folks weren't exactly happy with breaking with England) So when I look at all that bloodshed and lives lost, I really have to ask myself if a 9-11 every day wouldn't be better than giving up the freedom to be secure in our persons and papers that all of those folks in times past died for. So yes, there exists danger to the population for which a decrease in our way of life is not warranted. People will die. There will be much media coverage and yelling. But the real question isn't about the loss of life. The real question is whether or not a system of government that is designed around free and informed people electing representatives can survive a sustained attack built around getting people angry and afraid. You got me on that one. Perhaps single, 6 or 8-year presidential terms. Required rotation of the HoR with a 2 or 3 term limit? Going back to electing senators from state legislatures? Whatever the solution, it's going to involve a longer feedback loop between outrage and people voting. We also desperately need some group of people representing the system itself instead of the voters. That used to be the senate.