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.