In an article entitled “The Myth of the End of Terrorism,” author Scott Stewart reveals that, surprise, “terrorism will continue no matter what the next geopolitical cycle brings.” Hear that? Cha-ching. There goes another $100b (or more) to America’s police industrial complex. This despite the fact that . . .
You can’t “harden” (i.e. pay a cop salary and benefits to protect) the millions of potential terrorist targets. And if you think a terrorist won’t start his or her attack by taking out a rent-a-cop guarding a hospital or school, or the “real” cop arming the metal detector at a public building, or simply attack an unguarded target, you’re the dictionary definition of oblivious.
That said, I’ve got nothing against obliviousness. It’s not my preferred mode, but I’m OK with Americans walking around in condition white. Their lack of situational awareness and/or a concealed firearm is a sign of American society’s safety and strength. If and when regular terrorist attacks start up (again), if and when terrorists strike “the heartland,” citizens will wise-up and tool-up. People are only as armed as they believe they need to be.
Provided of course, they can be. Ironically, the states with the most attractive terrorist targets are also the states where it’s next to impossible for average citizens to exercise their constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm. 9/11 went down in New York City and Washington, D.C., two urban centers where concealed carry is subject to a de facto ban. It’s the same deal in other big cities (e.g., SF, LA and Chicago). And, I might point out, on airplanes.
Government-mandated civilian defenselessness would disappear if the jihadist SHTF. Or would it? When the Twin Towers came crashing down The Big Apple didn’t liberalize its gun laws. After all, the threat came from the sky (although it started on the ground). More importantly, the police industrial complex wanted, and still wants, to keep their greedy lips glued to the taxpayer tit. The funding spigot depends on a frightened (i.e. unarmed) populace. Nothing loosens the public pursestrings for law enforcement expenditure more than fear.
So, now, do you feel safer with the new, vastly increased army of pseudo-military police protecting us from terrorist attack? And are those feelings fact? The lack of another 9/11 may reflect police expansion. On the other hand, a massive terrorist attack may have been averted despite the bloated bureaucracy created by the rise of soldier cop nation. Meanwhile and in any case, militarized SWAT teams have been busy, with sometimes tragic results.
There is an alternative to bulking-up law enforcement agencies against bonkers bad guys. Us. We’re the alternative. Armed civilians. Forget your FBI informants and so-called sting operations that stink of entrapment. We’re the best people to detect terrorists. We know who the strangers are amongst us and we have enough common sense not to finger the wrong people. We’re also the best people to take direct and immediate action if and when a terrorist attacks. When seconds count, the anti-terrorist SWAT team’s tank is only minutes away.
If U.S. citizens took responsibility for homeland security—which is, in fact, their security—they wouldn’t be quite so willing to buy the ever-expanding police industry its shiny new toys. And pay their ballooning salaries. And big fat pensions. And increase their powers of arrest and detention. And that’s just the bad news. The good news is that we’d be safer from any attack if we were, as individuals and a people, armed. We’d all be safer.
More guns less terrorists? Maybe. Maybe not. But as it was when this nation was founded, the fight to protect our gun rights is the fight to defend our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness against all those who would take it away from us, whatever their motivation.