In his recent book, Guns, Freedom, and Terrorism, the NRA’s Wayne
LaPierre advocates that one good way for Americans to protect themselves against
terrorism is to be well armed.
"With the threat of more terror attacks… Americans are looking
toward the protection of the Second Amendment. The most basic element of that
right goes to the individual citizens' ability to protect themselves, their
families, their homes, their communities, and, if need be, their nation."
It may come as no real
shock to those who have followed my column over the years that I completely
agree with Mr. LaPierre—Americans should most assuredly arm themselves against
terrorists. But as you might expect, I have a few points of my own to add.
~ The war on terror is one
of the most unconventional conflicts we’ve ever fought.
Nineteen fanatics armed with box cutters for the most part, used no army,
no tanks, no fighter planes, no ships, not even a gun, but instead used our own
commercial aircraft, invested only about $300,000 on a plan that killed 3,000
people, cost our economic system billions and changed our way of life
tremendously. Since we just can’t
fight such an enemy with tanks, armies alone can’t win it alone—it’s
anything but a conventional war. Unconventional yes but unwinable?
No, but it will take all of us to win it.
The question is how can and should private citizens defend themselves and
help win this war against terrorists?
defense is a God given right. Even
before Cain killed Able, God instilled in every living thing the instinct to
survive and protect their own. It’s
an indisputable law of nature that cannot be repealed—even by the most avowed
Washington politician. We have an
inalienable right to defend ourselves, as well as our families, and our
constitution guarantees every American the right to keep and bear the
instruments necessary to do that. On
this, there is no argument or room for discussion in my view.
Police, the Army, the Marines, or the National Guard can’t be everywhere all
the time to protect every American 24/7…but we can. What do you mean colonel?
Simply this, although government agencies can’t be everywhere Americans
are all the time, guns in the holsters of Americans could physically be
everywhere Americans are all the time and provide readily effective protection
against thugs of all types 24/7—including terrorists.
can’t and shouldn’t depend on government to act as the only means of
protection against crime and terror. I
get back to the law of self-defense here. We
have the God given right and the God given duty to protect our own regardless of
what those on the anti-gun, big government left try to sell or force on us.
guns, less crime. John
Lott proved this in his book of the same name and I’ve written about this
subject, gotten into more arguments with anti-gunners and anti-gun politicians
more times than I can count. And by the way, crime in this case includes acts of
the citizens on those planes of 9/11 had been armed, could the terrorists have
taken over carrying only box cutters? I
seriously doubt it. Look how
effective the Americans were that rushed the terrorists and crashed the plane
into a Pennsylvania field. What if those passengers would have been armed?
Need anyone on that plane have died—other than a few worthless
terrorists that is? We can only speculate. The point here is, our enemy’s
success on 9/11 depended, in large part, on encountering unarmed, vulnerable
Americans…and it still does.
are not unlike street thugs in their tactical approach.
They seek out the softest/weakest targets with the highest payoff.
Thugs would much rather attack a rich mark they know is unarmed than they
would someone that might be packing. This
is indisputable given the fact that in areas where concealed carry is permitted,
there is much less crime than in areas where concealed carry is prohibited.
Bottom line here is simple: Terrorists
prefer less carry by those they attack—da!!!!
the terrorists’ target is largely Americans, doesn’t it stand to reason they
would prefer Americans to be unarmed thus more vulnerable to attack?
Doesn’t it stand to reason that the less well defended Americans are
the greater are the terrorists’ chances of waging a successful war against
Americans? If you answered yes,
then let me ask you one last question.
it stand to reason that those who talk against expanded carry or advocate the
extended ban on semi-autos for Americans, especially in times of war on our own
soil, be looked upon with very real skepticism? I think so because when it comes right down to it,
whether gun controllers realize it or not, their approach advocates that which
America’s enemy would very much like to see—more vulnerable Americans.
So in light of this war for survival America is now fighting, what then
does this continued push for enhanced gun control say about die-hard gun
controllers? I’ll leave that for
you to answer.
view from my saddle…
Dark Canyon Home Page