There are a number of books about a terrorist attack on the Super Bowl. Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears and Thomas Harris’ Black Sunday are the most famous. In some ways, these books are reassuring. What could anyone do to stop a bomb plot? You know, anyone other than the heroic anti-terrorists in America’s (and Israel’s) employ. Best to pay your taxes, enjoy the game and trust Uncle Sam to keep you safe. That kind of passive, fatalistic mindset suits terrorists and gun grabbers alike. The former because it’s easier to annihilate people without situational awareness. The latter because it’s easier to disarm civilians if they think the government will keep them safe. Of course . . .
There’s nothing wrong with maintaining organizations dedicated to rooting out and destroying terrorists and/or arresting criminals – as long as they respect their Constitutional limitations. But there’s no way the combined efforts of local and state police – along with the DHS, FBI, CIA and the rest of the federal farrago of law enforcement agencies – can keep us safe. America is a huge country with tens of thousands of potential targets, and terrorists are clever people.
The last major terrorist attack on America, 9/11, was 13 years ago. The danger has not passed. Regardless of our government’s unconstitutional Patriot Act or current day policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Columbia, Mexico or anywhere else in the world, Americans are now and always will be terrorist targets. It’s us, average ordinary citizens, that the terrorists want to maim and kill.
Like the audience at The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, we are at the sharp end. As such, we are the “first responders.” Disarmed, facing an enemy who cares nothing about human life, unarmed Americans can only respond by fleeing, hiding, countering with inadequate weapons or dying. Armed, we have a fighting chance.
Our security depends on the existence of a large indefatigable army of armed civilians. Not an army per se; millions of “ordinary” tooled-up Americans and alert to potential threats to themselves, their loved ones and society. Not to coin a phrase, it takes a citizen militia to protect a country.
The argument against armed Americans as a bulwark against terrorism: what good would they do? Where is there an example of an armed American stopping a terrorist in “the Homeland” (the government’s Nazi-like term for our country)? As far as I know, there hasn’t been one. Yet. So? Did we have to wait until 9/11 to install [mostly] impenetrable cockpit doors on airplanes? Besides . . .
Armed citizens have stopped psycho killers (i.e. active shooters without a political agenda). Assistant principal Joel Myrick’s actions at the Pearl High School shooting are one good example. Concealed carry permit holder Nick Meli’s intervention at the Clackamas Mall is another. Clearly, a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. As some 85k to 1.5m defensive gun uses per year prove.
When it comes to countering terrorists, the antis prefer proactive policing. They like the idea of the aforementioned alphabet soup of law enforcement agencies holding all the cards (i.e. guns), surveilling Americans. When this proto-police state fails to prevent an attack on the public it claims to serve, they want [disarmed] citizens to rely on “professional” (i.e. government controlled) law enforcement. You know, to contain the carnage and clean up the mess.
Speaking to abcnews.go.com, Interpol’s top cop had something important to say about that strategy.
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”
Guess which way the Super Bowl has gone? That said, I’ve got nothing against extraordinary security for extraordinary events. I wouldn’t/won’t attend a mega-event for the reason implied above (determined terrorists penetrating so-called secure enclaves to prey on a disarmed populace for maximum publicity).
Again, terrorists aren’t stupid. They’re more than smart enough to avoid protected enclaves entirely and attack genuine soft targets: places without armed guards, live surveillance, bomb-sniffing dogs and armed SWAT teams on standby. Places like . . . School Number One (SNO) in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia. Thirty-two armed terrorists participated in that attack which killed 156 children.
Adam Lanza’s murder spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School, James Holmes’ slaughter at the Cinemark theater and all the other recent mass shootings are amateur hour compared to a “proper” terrorist attack. I’m not saying that a few armed teachers or civilians will deter, delay or destroy determined terrorists. But they might.
Bottom line: it behooves us to have as many armed Americans ready for our defense in as many places as possible. That includes NFL football games.
The racist roots of gun control has been an open secret going back some time now. Clayton Cramer has done more than most on scholarly research into the topic:
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm
What Clayton has long since found out is that in many US States, there were very, very few gun control laws in the states until the prospect arose of free black men being able to show up in a state and carry guns. Even in the 1960’s, some of the gun control laws passed in some states were in response to black people demonstrating with guns.
The issue of black citizens owning guns even makes its way into the Dredd Scott SCOTUS decision. You can read therein that the idea of black men being able to own guns was worrisome to Justice Taney.
Armed citizens can deter or stop shooters but they can do squat against bombers. They must be stopped at a distance. A bomb in place must be disarmed by trained personnel. Armed citizens, law enforcement and the military should all be on the same team and do what each is best suitedb to do.
Concealed suicide vest trumps concealed handgun every time.
Yes a bomb beats a gun, but one self aware armed citizen could cause a potential bomber to detonate prematurely, if confronted. The citizen may die, but…
The potential to save hundreds of lives in that process is there. Is it guaranteed, no, but at least there is an option.
“it takes a citizen militia to protect a country”. now worry of coining phrase. that’s essentially a modern terminology of what’s written in the constitution, is it not?
Hey, if we had a terrorist attack at the Super Bowl, it would have the side effect of drastically increasing the national average IQ.
You mean to say that Team America won’t come and save the motherfracking day.
Fuck Yeah!
I have stated this many times. Most Americans, unlike Israelis walk around with their heads burried in their backsides.
People stop paying attention to their surroundings, and the people in it. Of course no one is perfect, but this is just my observations. RF is right too, there are so many soft targets out there.
When is the Super Bowl, anyway?
“If five states do not require a permit, then the statement ‘All other states that permit the practice honor concealed-carry, but only with a state permit.’” is false. It’s a mistake that can be made by anyone who is not familiar with firearms law. Anyone like your average dead tree daily reporter.” Or…….by Dean Weingarten……..
There are many wrinkles in firearms laws. Licensure is a different animal from manner of carry. You can have open carry, but only with a license. You can have permitless carry, but it can only be concealed. A state may allow open carry, but might restrict it in some establishments while simultaneously allowing lawful concealed carry in those same establishments. It all depends on the details of that particular state’s laws.
Moreover, and to the point of Weingarten’s jab, just because a given state allows permitless carry, aka “Constitutional carry”, that doesn’t necessarily mean it applies to everyone. I didn’t look up the details on all five of the states mentioned in the article. However, in the case of Wyoming, permitless carry only applies to Wyoming residents. If you are not a Wyoming resident, you may still open carry in Wyoming, but only if you have a valid out of state license to carry concealed. That’s the sort of state-by-state idiosyncrasy that this bill’s authors address and the original article’s writer refers to.
Why Mr. Weingarten felt it necessary to take a senseless swipe at the journalist for an innocent, as opposed to reckless, error, which turned out not to be an error at all. is puzzling.
This explains why our elected representatives DO NOT CARE about interfering with our 2A. Mag limits, bullet buttons, safety list…3.5 % CCW is not enough to unhinge their thinking.
Move this to 20% and legislators will have our undivided attention…
that figure DOES NOT depict the number of people here carrying firearms. I don’t know anyone with a permit. it’s pointless. the constitution is Arizona’s permit.
Just bought a 1944 WW II era K31 with a ME of .752 , is there ANYTHING I need to know about this rifle or look out for, before shooting it ?
Really? We are still pretending DD was going to actually pay Super Bowl ad costs to run this ad? Even if the nfl called their bluff and let them run the ad DD was never going to have a Super Bowl ad.
Lighten up. Stop seeing a boogeyman behind every tree.
Are you addressing that to Shannon Watts (which would make sense) or someone here?
Dana Loesch should also mention this if and when she debuts on The View and really, truly ream them as hard as she possibly can for it. If she reads this article and takes notes, she’ll have the ammunition she needs to embarrass them on national television.
Let’s just hope the producers value Free Speech over lunatic fringe anti-rights sock-puppets. I’m not holding my breath, though.
The Black Panther party tried, but ultimately failed to change American Blacks on their perception of armed self-defense. I’m talking about the REAL Black Panthers, not the Disney/Intel front version we have now.
The reasons why are naturally quite complex, but the biggie is the FBI, who actually ASSASSINATED many, and threw the rest to rot in prison on trumped-up charges.
I wasn’t surprised to find so many mayors on the West side of Washington on the list. But I also chuckle because my town has an open carry ordanince on the books (as in go for it).
3.Claim her opposition is getting money from the big bad gun industry, no matter what the facts may be.
Interesting claim considering her group is getting massive amounts of dollars from Bloomberg!
Exiles from “up north” are flooding SC right now. They are the types who say they support RKBA, “within reason.” Then they let their dog crap on your yard and if you complain they say “hey, dogs dont know where the property line is.” These Northern exiles, in their desire to move away from tyranny, bring their liberal Democrat voting politics with them.
Kind of like Mexicans who jump the border.
Shannon Watts is pushing hard on this as she wrote a guest column for Mediaite. Looks like Bloomberg is making her work hard to earn that anti-gun paycheck.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/guest-column-gun-safety-activist-mom-shannon-watts-on-dana-loesch-and-the-view/
Gun control coward: tautology.
I love the smell of bacon in the morning…. Smells like victory… er… breakfast!!!
I am concerned that the “wanted poster” anthropomorphizes the gun. Short step from that to “the gun just went off and murdered the kids.”