You're problem Lamont is you think that because I don't clump all couple billion Muslims as fanatical terrorists I'm naive and weak on security. In this you would be wrong.
In fact, trying to be secure to a vast "whole", when you should be focusing on the dangerous few is not just a waste of time and resources, it insures you will not in fact win. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan. When we looked at the entire population as enemies we got nowhere, and got no buy-in from the majority that would assist us if only we gave them some order and security.
You think casting a wide net will make you safe? How slow can you be? Those guys on the subway with beards? Those are just ugly dudes that are probably Hindu or Hasidic, and the terrorist with the C4 and cell-phone detonator looks like a nervous college kid. But you missed him because you're too damn busy staring at your version of the "barbarian hoard."
I have no illusions about the world we live in. All I read just about is non-fiction history, or contemporary reporting. And I don't mean BS op eds or TV commentaries. First hand, on the ground reporting. Crazy, violent, despicable stuff goes on- and if they could, many would try and import it right to our door.
But I got news for you. We're not going to insure it never happens by thinking it's one big undifferentiated hoard out there and all we need to do it have as many guns pointed outward as possible. If there is one bad guy in a family of ten what's the easiest way to get to him? Turn the rest of the family against him. You attack the family at random, and what do you think will happen? They'll all come after you and you you'll never get the one you wanted.
I know you like to come off as a blow-hard, it's like your shtick. But I also know you're smart enough to know nothing is ever a simple as you are making it out to be.