“We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire,” ISIS proclaimed on JustPasteIt.com. “Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.” Whatever that means. What we do know is that the Garland, Texas jihadis came a cropper when a cop shot and killed them both. Assuming ISIS can launch fresh attacks . . .
is that enough? How can we best defend ourselves against terrorists?
One approach: keep spending tens of billions of dollars on three-letter agencies, charging them with detecting and intercepting terrorist attacks. A method whose effectiveness is shrouded in secrecy and is, I might add, inherently suspect. While we don’t know about all the attacks the feds have stopped, it’s clear they can’t stop them all. The Garland assault happened, after all.
Another approach: increase police presence. Put an armed cop or two at every so-called soft target, as per the NRA’s cop-in-every-school post-Newtown proposal. Yeah, no thanks. The more cops we have in our public places the more these cops will find to do – and I don’t just mean sucking up tens of billions more in taxes. Which came first, the police or the police state? I have no desire to find out.
A better idea: arm the populace. Let the people defend themselves against terrorist attacks by force of arms. Even better: encourage them to do so openly. A few obviously armed Americans at every public gathering and formerly soft target would create a massive deterrent effect against terrorists. I’m thinking openly carried rifles as well as handguns. I mean, why not? A long gun is the best way to take out a bad guy, bar none.
Then again . . .
IEDs. Once you eliminate the easy option – taking out groups of people with a couple of guns Charlie Hebdo-style – the terrorists will change tactics. They’ll bomb their victims. And maybe strafe them with rifle fire in the ensuing chaos. Or blow the survivors up with a secondary or tertiary device. Whether carried concealed or openly, defensive firearms won’t do squat against a reasonably competent bomber.
Or terrorists in jets slamming into a building. Or a hijacked firetruck or eighteen wheeler aimed at a crowd. Or poison put into the air or water supply. Or a dozen other “non-cronfrontational” methods. Which kinda puts us back in the three-letter strategy: attempting to ID and stop terrorists before they can carry out their murderous plans.
Does that mean we’ve got no real option other than trusting those three-letter agencies and local LEOs to gather information – without trampling our freedoms?
This is not an academic exercise. Section 215 of The Patriot Act comes up for renewal in June. That’s the bit of the Act that gives the NSA and the FBI the legal right to vacuum up the call records of millions of innocent people. Strike that. Millions of people, period. Most every American violates some federal law or another at some point. The Wall Street Journal spelled it out in 2011:
“There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime,” said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years.”
So, it’s not even a matter of tying the hands of the spies amongst us to defend the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It’s which crime does the federal government know you’ve committed and what are they going to do about it?
This highlights the hidden problem of fighting terrorism in the U.S.: the government and its citizens are not united in the fight. It’s us vs. them vs. them. The shocking lack of transparency surrounding Uncle Sam’s counter-terrorism efforts – which they claim is a necessity to git ‘er done – alienates average Americans from the task and puts us all at risk.
You could say that’s a feature not a bug for the feds, but I couldn’t possibly comment (for fear of being labeled a paranoid gun nut). Except to say this . . .
It’s high time that average Americans make their peace with peace officers and unite against the common foe. Wait. No. It’s early days yet. When terrorism becomes an accepted reality, that’s when the combined forces of armed, alert Americans and armed alert security professionals will occur. At least that’s what I hope will happen. I fear it will go the other way.
Terrorist attacks could well widen the gap between the government and the governed. “Don’t worry, we’ll take care of it” is an extremely seductive message for timid people who are not ready, willing or able to take responsibility for their own safety, the safety of their families and the safety of the community. The public’s acceptance of the anti-gunners’ laughable contention that “only the police are trained enough to handle guns” is deeply worrisome in that regard.
And that returns us to open carry. Open carry isn’t just a good idea to deter criminals or terrorists. It’s a good way to change participants’ mindset from passive to active. A way for citizens to tell themselves, their community and their government, I’m part of this effort, just like you. I’m ready to do my part to protect innocent life, just like you.
Partners are best when they’re equals. Open carriers are equal to law enforcement, not subservient. Tell that to Americans [justifiably] bitching about police brutality. But don’t forget to tell it to Americans each and every time a terrorist strikes. Otherwise, one way or another, the terrorists will win.
[h/t John in Ohio]
I am too afraid of the police and crazy antis to open carry. However, I saw the first open carrier I had ever seen in MN yesterday. A Harley guy in the standard Harley guy outfit on his bike on the expressway.
Afraid of the crazy antis? So… they win. Good job.
So it’s all okay and good that he’s afraid of the police? Good job.
Wouldn’t a police officer who is harassing someone for lawfully carrying openly, by definition, be included in “antis”?
Pretty sure I didn’t say that…
Chip, that depends. I have heard cops say they have to respond to every call about a man with a gun, to at least briefly talk to them and assess them as threat/no threat. If they didn’t, and that OC guy turned out to be the rare nutter that ends up shooting people for no good reason, imagine the PR shitstorm and lawsuits the police would be exposed to when the 911 public record shows they got a call and did not respond.
Even if that brief encounter is all they do, it would be annoying to constantly encounter this if you live in an area where those calls are going to be frequent.
Absolutely untrue, from a legal perspective – as the courts have asserted and affirmed. Police are under no obligation to respond to *anything*. More specifically, police are under no obligation to tespond to teports of unlawful activity. Carrying a firearm, where it is lawful to do so, does not constitute reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.
The sooner dispatchers learn to say, “call us back when he does something unlawful,” the better off we’ll all be.
I have heard cops say they have to respond to every call about a man with a gun, to at least briefly talk to them and assess them as threat/no threat.
They may say that but it isn’t always necessarily true. We had officers and even departments parroting this line in Ohio. They were using it to discourage open carry. Well, after a while they realized it was nonsense, especially when all they got was “Am I being detained?” “Am I free to go?” Training changed in some places and this myth has evaporated. It’s well established that police have no duty to protect the individual. Calls about someone minding their own business, doing nothing illegal, are handled every day without an officer responding.
Eh, unfortunately MN is not a fully approved Open Carry State. By law if you can carry it’s supposed to afford open or concealed as the permit here is strictly “carry” not CCW like other states. Unfortunately the liberals left the law really vague which makes his concerns pretty valid. The last thing you want is the cops called on you by antis since the yankee cops seem to have the tendency of shooting first and asking questions later, especially in Murderapolis.
Side Note: I am re-addopting the term Murderapolis but sadly this time its not due to gangs it’s due to the cops who can’t seem to go a week without getting sued for beating someone.
The only person I’ve ever seen OC in MN was at a suburban Target not too long ago — pretty much MDA Central, but I didn’t see anyone get worked up about it or even say a word to him about it.
The alphabet gangs are watching us… We have to protect ourselves from the real threats. Open carry and great stories about bad guys getting ventilated will do more than listening to my phone calls and looking at pictures of my wife that you stole from my phone.
Who are the 3-letter agencies more concerned with, Islamic radicals or Tea Party members? When the Fort Hood shooting is considered workplace violence but all manner of conservative activities (supporting the Constitution, stockpiling food, etc) are considered to be suspicious according to many internal military and law enforcement documents, I think you have your answer.
They obviously arent concerned one bit with real terrorists. They ignore or miss Tweets saying “I’m going to do X at Y in Z hours” while arresting security professionals who identify holes in airline security.
If I had my tinfoil hat on I’d almost think the feds were intentionally creating an environment that encouraged terrorism and punished defense by the way they’ve been acting.
Billions of f@cking dollars spent sucking up every communication by everyone on the planet and clowns using clearnet Facebook and Twitter with their real names and addresses are somehow missed.
Save it completely? No.
Make it a much tougher target, at least for shootings? Absolutely.
Unfortunately there will be more attacks, most likely on the smaller scale as opposed to another 9/11. But the U.S. and its citizens will endure
I’m all for open carry, but the deterrent effect seems like it would mostly apply to common criminals. A suicidal terrorist with a rifle isn’t likely to be scared off by a couple shiny 1911s on a few peoples’ hips.
The cops in Garland were not just carrying openly, they were in police uniforms. How much did that deter those two shitheads?
There are different types of deterrence. I’d say pools of blood collecting under inert raghead bodies is quite a good deterrence.
But it isn’t. First, if they get gunned down by “infidels” they believe they go straight to paradise and those seventy virgins. Second, others “back home” seeing that will want revenge. Third, it will be propaganda relying on those first two to recruit more “martyrs”.
As the one Islamist wife said to another after seeing the second’s pictures of three sons dead carrying out terrorist attacks, “They blow up so young, don’t they?”
It’s a deterrent when a suicidal terrorist thinks he won’t be able to do that much carnage before he is taken out himself. Killing one or two people is horrible, but it’s not the numbers they would want to send a message. Therefore they would be more likely to pick a softer target where they could do more damage. Think about it as a return on investment as deranged as that may sound.
These guys are an example of the stupidity of these clowns, there were a zillion armed men around, and all they had to do was drive a couple miles to the nearest mall to start the party, but they had a target and allah was on their side, so they just went ahead. Boneheads.
It’s not only 1911s on hips… it needs to be long guns, seen everyday, everywhere. The mix of those openly bearing long guns and handguns with an unknown number of people bearing handguns concealed is a deterrent. It might very well force terrorists towards IEDs and other plans but those also require more resources and planning on the part of terrorist organizations. The shift saps more time and resources from the organizations. Also, the potential for the terrorist act to be caught in the preparatory stage (planting a bomb, etc) by armed individuals is a greater deterrent than just “See something, say something.”
As far as the Garland attack goes… I doubt that they expected to be stopped so quickly. A few more quick stops and they will have to re-think their methods.
“As far as the Garland attack goes… I doubt that they expected to be stopped so quickly.”
Agree.
That said, they would have had zero gumption taking out the open carry person first.
Conceal carry. Make the ‘Tangos’ (terrorists) have to guess who is an armed deterrent to their public location attack.
*If* we can believe their ‘next six months will be interesting’ comment, we will see if they learned what didn’t work and adapt to what will.
“Many more attacks like that one…” What you mean where all the people you send get killed and only superficial injuries are sustained by ours?
I’m down with that.
When those two guys kiss, they have a complete set of facial hair.
Good piece.
It is a sad state of affairs that many “Americans” will read this and regard your solution as somehow radical, while believing that the government sending us off to needless wars and hoovering up the phone records and metadata of every individual in the country is just hunky dory.
It’s sad and concerning that so many living in a society traditionally called free will clamor for the forges of their chains to be constructed while being repulsed and terrified by the realistic individual Liberty approach sitting right in front of them. Starting tomorrow, some people could choose to open carry a long gun every couple of days a week or even just one as they go about their regular business. Sheriffs and police chiefs could decide to train their officer as to the importance and constitutionality of individuals openly bearing arms. I believe that a sense of partnership and comradery could develop between armed individuals and local law enforcement. I think that the deterrent value is immeasurably large; against in-person acts of terrorism and tyrannical government. It would help immunize communities against widespread abuse by officers and lessen the likelihood of Baltimore style rioting. However, I don’t think government beyond the local level (or state level at most) will encourage it and will probably go out if its way to discourage it, even creating more legal stumbling blocks to such solutions.
That was an excellent article, RF! I agree with your reasoning and conclusions.
How about we establish a real Militia? Constitutional carry along with formal training for one rifle issued by the local Militia.This would be the only firearm that the gov. would have control over. Similar to the Swiss. But I think there are too many antis for this to work.
I don’t think it even needs to be that complicated and the end result, IMHO, would be similar to what happened in Mexico. Government would try to co-opt and eventually absorb it. Some people in open carry states just need to decide to open carry, even just one day a week, while they go about their regular day. Local law enforcement should get on board and train officers as to the reasons and importance of open carry. Those two things alone would make much difference.
Government
makes excuses forjustifies its actions all of the time by pointing to potential terrorism. If an open carrier feels that he or she must give a reason, “potential terrorism” is as good as any; especially when a terrorist attack and threats of more are so recent.“Government would try to co-opt and eventually absorb it.”
You are correct, but, that actually already happened. We did have militia.. Then it got turned into the “national guard” AKA Federal U.S. Army Lite.
Yep and I get your point. I was referring to future of this “new” militia the commenter was suggesting.
The People need to first get out and bear arms. They can drill and otherwise form groups to train into well regulation at some point if they so choose.
Please. We must all repeatedly and always refer to that cop as a TRAFFIC cop. That is absolutely priceless, similar to the cop in Austin making a 104 yard lethal shot with a service pistol while holding 2 horses. Even if the ackbars don’t get the insult, *I* sure do! They didn’t even make it to the SWAT team, after all their overseas training, with all their terrorist gear and all their prayers, the first cop they ran across took a 10 second break from writing speeding tickets and shot them down like dogs, with a damn PISTOL, for goodness sake. Try NYC next time, idiots! Texas is not your cuppa, mmkay?
Sort of like the Vietnamese defeating a Chinese invasion in the with local reserves. They’d already turned back the Chinese by the time the regulars arrived.
Now you’ve done it. I can hear the pearl-clutching from here.
The first step is simply carry. The manner really doesn’t matter. Eliminate so-called “gun free” zones, and make it the cultural norm that a non-trivial percent of the law-abiding citizenry are carrying, concealed or openly.
Now, petty criminals are different from fanatical terrorists. Whereas the former are likely to look for easy (i.e. unarmed, unlikely to resist) marks, the latter very well may look first for the armed resistance. But even then, when a non-trivial percentage are carrying, even openly, a terrorist can’t simply pick out the lone open carrier.
As for militarized attacks (IEDs, bombs, etc.) – well, that *is* what we have the alphabet-soup .gov agencies for.
In the end: just carry. ISIS claims 51. There are 100,000,000 of us.
+1
And, IED attacks, etc require more resources and planning when compared to one or a few terrorists grabbing firearms, clubs, knives, or whatever to carry out an in-person attack. Forcing terrorists to more resource and time consuming attacks drains the organizations faster and might decrease frequency. Even with more complicated attacks, there is the potential for an armed individual to spot them planting an IED or otherwise preparing for the attack. “See something, say something” isn’t nearly as much of a deterrent as “I am here. I am armed. I see you about to plant that bomb.”
Or, to paraphrase, “bang”.
Indeed.
“When terrorism becomes an accepted reality, that’s when the combined forces of armed, alert Americans and armed alert security professionals will occur.”
It’s fair to assume that the cops “get it”. They understand that they are now barely able to hold-their-own with ordinary crime. If every mall and town-square became a probable scene for an attack they would be overwhelmed.
What are the politicians going to be doing? Will they embrace an armed citizenry? Or, hunker down in their capital buildings and try to maintain public safety with only police, National Guardsmen and military?
If Congress passes National Reciprocity this summer it will signal they embrace the armed citizenry. But, what if they don’t pass National Reciprocity? Forty States are free to arm-up and do what they can to defend themselves; perhaps with the vocal encouragement of many more sheriffs and police chiefs.
That will leave the 10 remaining Won’t-Issue jurisdictions as SOFT-TARGETS. Where will the jihadis muster? Virginia or Maryland? Michigan or California? Wherever they appear, sheriffs and police chiefs will have to decide whether their priorities are to:
– protect their elite established leaders; or,
– allow the people to defend themselves.
Even if national reciprocity passes, it won’t necessarily affect won’t-issue states and locales very much.
Consider New York City. How many of you folks out there reading this travel to NYC regularly? And even if you could carry there, would you go through the airline hassle to do so?
So, given the local denizens still can’t get a permit (and, I’ll betcha, NR won’t get nonresident state permits recognized for locals) how would this really change the landscape for NYC, San Francisco, etc.? Sure the occasional visitor might be able to carry, but what fraction of the local population would that represent?
Actually, it would directly impact effectively won’t-issue states. By statute, all 50 states issue resident carry licenses (or have true constitutional carry). Thus, there would be absolutely nothing that won’t-issue states can do, short of repealing their existing statutes (thereby running afoul of Heller et al), to keep out-of-state people from carrying on their state-issued resident carry permits.
I don’t see how locales would be any different. New York City has statutes for pistol permits, thus they would fall under national reciprocity.
In my limited experience, the “airline hassle” isn’t much of a hassle.
Oh, this is the truly delicious part. Can you imagine the fit that locals would pitch when non-locals are lawfully carrying firearms in their own city, while they themselves cannot? The natives would force their tyrannical overlords to enact sane, constitutional legislation to restore their rights.
We have that now in CA and adjacent states to NY, still no real popular desire for change. They do not want freedom in these places, that is why the laws were passed in the first place and persist.
In New York? Not likely. What would happen is you’d see a strong push from the antis and their low-information voting bloc for either the repeal of a National Reciprocity act or an exemption carved out for NYC.
A significant percentage of the population in New York is anti-2A, and they actually support all the insane Nanny State BS Bloomberg (and now DeBlasio) are promulgating.
New York City wouldn’t have any control over the matter. That’s the beauty of a federal reciprocity bill that stipulates that any state that issues to its residents a firearm carry permit must honor every other state’s firearm carry permits issued to its residents.
New York City can statutorily infringe upon the rights of New Yorkers, but it may not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
“Even if national reciprocity passes, it won’t necessarily affect won’t-issue states and locales very much.”
I don’t assert that National Reciprocity is the silver bullet that will slay either terrorism or the war-on-the-2A. I don’t think there is any single magic bullet for either war. It’s almost the reverse thought pattern.
Terrorism on US soil might be a motivating influence that brings us – politicians and citizens alike – to focus on our threats. WW-II seemed to have this effect.
Politicians and their liberal constituents imagine that only more government spending, taxation and borrowing will keep us secure. Look how well it has worked so far!
If we experience repeated incidents of domestic terrorism the population may begin to question the meme (more government). National Reciprocity will crack the egg-shell that surrounds the Won’t-Issue jurisdictions’ iron hold on the psyche of their populations. Virginians packing in DC and MD are not bringing chaos to the streets! Who would’a thunk?
Possibly, residents of DC and MD will get VA driver’s licenses and then get VA carry permits, bringing their guns and permits back to DC/MD as “non-residents”. Kosher? No; but, they may do it anyway and the police might tolerate it.
Permit applications might soar in the Shall-Issue States. E.g., someone who lives in VA might have foregone getting a permit because he too often needs to cross the line to DC/MD and, heretofore, couldn’t carry. He will now be free to do so and may be motivated by the rising threat of domestic terrorism.
Imagine if the market-saturation of CWPs in the free states rapidly grew from 4% -> 8% -> 16% -> 32%. Would that go unnoticed in the Won’t-Issue States?
If the threat becomes real enough, local politics might change in the Won’t-Issue jurisdictions. As Trenton sees Philadelphia arming-up and attacks hitting NJ cities but not PA cities, will NJ stick with Won’t-Issue? Or, will it start issuing more liberally? Will it decide to honor non-resident permits from other States even when carried by NJ residents?
I see National Reciprocity as a disruptive factor in the war against the 2A just as I see instances of domestic terrorism as a disruptive factor in the hegemony of gun-politics in the Won’t-Issue States. It’s important to see the war-on-the-2A and terrorism NOT as momentary phenomena (as was the 9/11/01 attacks) but rather has long-drawn-out evolutions of political sentiments.
National Reciprocity would be a game-changer, make no mistake. We’ve been winning battles throughout much of America, but losing ground in the hardline anti-2A states — CA, NY, MD, etc. I live in NYC (for now) and very much feel isolated from the constitutional carry and campus carry victories won in other states.
National Reciprocity would change that. Would it reverse all the antis? No, of course not, but it would be a start to opening up gun rights in states that have historically restricted them. If the wording of the bill was airtight and gives no room for exemption, it would be an enormous win.
Then we need to repeal the SAFE Act…
Covert coverage is the key, terrorists use constantly evolving tactics.
No, just carrying is the key — to be effective, we need both open and concealed.
It’s a fairly sound assumption that fewer people are going to want to carry openly; that’s just the American character at the moment. So a terrorist is planning an op, and he notices three different people carrying openly in his target location when he scouts it. He will have to assume that given three people carrying openly, there are probably a dozen at least carrying concealed. So he has to plan for probable open carriers and even more concealed.
The open carry serves to remind the bad guy that even more people around are carrying concealed — and while he’s distracted worrying about the open carriers, the concealed carriers have a chance to notice him.
Yep. The deterrence is greater with both types of carry.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=terrorist+hunting+permit
No limit, pick your favorite caliber, call, and bait, stay away from the derka-derka burka-doe pee (they use men for sexual pleasure and women for procreation ONLY as their women are considered unclean [their women]).
get a big ‘ol glass o’ milk.
Those decals are funny except What are Californians going to use? I forgot, they can use the Tactical Pen.
You can never stop all terrorist attacks from a determined terrorist organization.
There are two requirements to defeat terrorism. First, the population must have faith that their way of life will not crumble because of terror attacks. You can kill millions of Americans, but if America keeps faith that our way of life is not ending, then terrorism won’t work (except for those killed, of course).
Second, you must destroy the will of the terrorists. We have been doing this wrong for fifteen years now. The laws of war permit a lot more leeway on the use of force than our western governments have been using.
If we had fought the Japanese or the Germans with the same fear of hurting civilians or non-military targets, we’d all be speaking German and Japanese today. And those were recognized nation-states with a lot more restrictive laws.
We need to make the populations that the terrorists come from more afraid to cooperate with the terrorists than to fight them. If they know that their city will be ruined if they allow terrorists in their midst, they will fight to drive them out. The way it is now, I’ve watched as a dozen terrorists march into a city (Haditha, for instance) and pull people out of their homes and execute a few families while the neighbors watch. The Iraqis knew that we would not hurt them, but the terrorists would. That’s howa few terrorists can control entire cities.
The Westphalian model does not work. Civilians are the most able group to stop terrorists or overturn a government. Our current obsession of not hurting civilians and in fact paying them no matter what cause they support, has made a mockery of war and has made a war against primitive societies endless, instead of the three or four year success it should have been.
Of course there are other problems too, such as rotation of units overseas. Units should be committed to the war until the war is finished. We have instead institutionalized unit rotations, giving incentive to unit survival over winning the war. We didn’t have unit rotations in WWII. We didn’t send units home after six to twelve months.
As for the home front, an armed population is critical to keeping the people assured that the rule of law and our culture will continue.
The only way to stop Muslims from peddling their terrorism to to slaughter them en masse.
We need a few ops on the scale of the Tokyo firebombings and a Dresden/Hamburg thrown on top as a cherry. There need to be hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and it needs to be done with brutality and savagery. Nukes would be took clean and quick. This needs to be something Old Testament in style, and firebombing before a desert wind has a lot to recommend it to get through to their mindset.
I didn’t used to think this way, but then I started studying the history of Islam. And now I’m more certain than ever that this is the only tactic that will set them back on their heels. The complacent Muslims need to fear us more than they fear the jihadis.
Exactly.
However tempting, I am not sure that passes the ethical test or the pragmatic one either for that matter.
War isn’t about ethics. It is either about winning or losing. “Ethical” or “just” wars are the invention of the inbred European nobility, and the equally corrupt Catholic church, and the idea of “ethical war” is every bit as intellectually bankrupt as their “sovereign rights of kings” – yet another invention out of whole cloth.
Real wars come down to this: Either you fight to win or you fight to lose. Ghengis Khan fought to win, and he won big – clear out of the steppes of Asia into Europe. The Muslims from about 900 AD onwards fought to win, and they fought up southern and southeastern Europe to Vienna, Austria before being turned back. These campaigns changed or eliminated entire countries and civilizations in their time.
Right now, the Muslims are fighting a war against western secular democracy. Muslims have no such ethical concerns. Anything is fair game against the kafir. Grab up some English translations of Muslim texts (the Qu’ran is only the beginning – you need to read the Hadith, and then especially the Sunna or Sira. Here you’ll find the mentality that drives Muslims in war. Start reading. Then start researching what the Muslim preachers are peddling.
Their brand of war has nothing to do with “ethics.”
The problem is that increasingly since the Treaty of Westphalia western civilization has been trying to make war more civilized.
But war is the opposite of being civilized.
An artificial barrier has been created between “noncombatant” and “combatant” but armies are fed by the bakers among the noncombatants. As we have seen repeatedly, governments rarely change because of outside pressure. Saddam Hussein was only removed by force and it took several divisions to oust him, and then years to find him. The population has the best means to control its rulers.
We have created a system where a people, such as the Afghans, can complacently sit back and allow Al Qaeda the Taliban to commit unspeakable acts from their borders, and they suffer nothing if they ignore it. In fact, we have paid them untold millions in wasted dollars in the hope that they might “like” us. If the terror organizations win, the population wins. If they lose, the population wins. They need to be more committed and responsible for what is done in their name.
So, is it ethical to allow these craven people, probably complicit people, to be coddled when they are in the best position to end the war? No. We need to recalibrate our ethics meters and we need to realize that the only moral war is total war. If we aren’t committed to fighting hard to end a war as decisively as possible, then we are immorally fighting that war.
I posit that morality is the same for large groups as it is for the individual. Intentionally killing innocent persons to influence other persons is immoral, no matter the scale. I can understand it if they are actually “weaponized” populations like the civilians in German WWII industrial centers and such. Even in that case one is still guilty of murdering those that are innocent. Whether this good and bad exchange is worth it is subjective (maybe) and debatable. In this case, I suspect that the danger and or ratio of guilty to innocent in the populations you are proposing targeting doesn’t warrant such an action.
Get caught up in hand-wringing over ethics and you’ve lost.
You’re fighting people who have no qualms about strapping on explosives and hurling themselves into a crowd of people.
There is no grinding them to submission. You have to erase them.
Agreed.
And here’s the whitepaper for the operation….
“No Substitute for Victory”: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory-the-defeat-of-islamic-totalitarianism/
One little blurb….
The power of the Islamic Totalitarians grows every day that we wait. The strategic balance will shift—the Islamic Totalitarians will have the capacity as well as the will to bring about the nuclear Armageddon that they so deeply crave—if Iran acquires nuclear bombs. It is not a kindness to wait, knowing that our response will have to be even more lethal after a mushroom cloud rises over American soil. To wait, in light of that knowledge, is irrational—criminally irrational.
+1
If you study their history, they kill off their intellectuals and do third-world jihad on the surround (rinse / repeat – well, we wish they’d rinse). They are used to dominating and subduing every culture they come across [even if their true history does not support this notion, their oral and written history does]. When you encounter such a folk, you can look in their eye and see that the gears are turning as to how to get it done. They dominate and oppress their kids and attempt to elevate themselves. It is beneath the average male of such cultures to work in any position of servitude, therefore you will note that the lowest position they will accept [though they probably hate you for it] is cab driver.
“…Islamic Totalitarians will have the capacity as well as the will to bring about the nuclear Armageddon that they so deeply crave—if Iran acquires nuclear bombs…”
Pakistan already has nukes.
Some of this sounds like gratuitous murder of innocents, and I have to disagree with that. But just here recently (maybe still ongoing) there was an op going on where some city was known to be a headquarters for ISIS, and much was being made of how well we were doing at whacking one here and one there without too many civilian casualties. In that event we should not care about civilian casualties, flatten the entire city with an overwhelming attack, then slaughter anyone escaping the rubble. When another group showed up at a different city, they would be unwelcome in the extreme. I guess to explain the difference, I would say to IGNORE the innocents, kill the bad guys without granting any asylums because of the people they hide behind. Our forces did that in WWII Europe and were welcomed as liberating heroes, even in Germany.
No, armed citizens won’t stop the Salafists from being successful at terrorism.
Something that people forget about the terrorist mindset: They crave media attention. They MUST have media coverage to effect their goals. Just shooting/blowing up random people won’t do a thing for their agenda.
Where in the US will a terrorist attack gain the most media attention? NYC or DC. The hit job on Geller’s conference would have had some media coverage, but the whole job, from start to finish, comes across to me mostly as a couple of newbies looking for jihadi browning points. If they had been successful, they would have killed the Jewish woman who was hosting a conference of people drawing Muhammed, hey, they score two-for-one bonus points – killing a Jew or two, and killing from infidels for blasphemy.
Instead, there was a traffic cop that smoked the two junior-league jihadis. Hmmm. That makes them look impotent. Lesson: Don’t plan ops in Texas or red states. Go back to what works – make sure the op is in a gun control area.
The terrs aren’t completely stupid – they’re going to take away a lesson here. They’re going to go back to the script that worked well 15+ years ago.
The varsity league terrs want major media. That’s why 9/11 attacked NYC and DC – they’re the two most media-saturated cities in the US. They’re also two places where citizens aren’t going to be able to carry, concealed or openly. Ergo, we’re not going to stop varsity-level terrs with open/concealed carry by citizens – because “know your place, peasant!” is the refrain of those who control the areas that are most media saturated.
Skyler and Dispeptic are absolutely right. The only way to end war is to make it so horrible that Nobody wants to play anymore. It worked in WWII but it seems that we have not tried it since. We have not had a truly successful outcome since either.
In the mean time…I’ll keep my Roscoe handy..
It definitely can’t hurt.
that is quite possibly the stupidest thing i have ever read on here.
“The more cops we have in our public places the more these cops will find to do – and I don’t just mean sucking up tens of billions more in taxes. Which came first, the police or the police state? I have no desire to find out.”
Well, said. Out here in flyover country, political conservatives are justifiably wary of increased police presence in our everyday lives. We are already lurching towards a police state in ways I would not have imagined a decade ago. And once a police state is established, it will resist change to the point of being more dangerous to American civil society than ISIS.
“ISIS versus the red-necks” sounds like a sci-fi novel, but it’s only a matter of time before the Lights Of Allah encounter an armed American citizenry. With decades of warfare under our belts, America is effectively a nation of veteran soldiers which is a pretty good definition of an armed camp. Armed citizens will be there right now when the police are only minutes away.
In this day of age, the Government has gotten so large that is suffers from “misplaced priorities” syndrome. The government, instead of focusing most of it’s attention on real, violent enemies both foreign and domestic, is mired in other issues that frankly it doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to do. Worse, is that there is almost little to no accountability, so when it cracks down on political enemies using the IRS, ATF, EPA, Justice Department, etc, it will feel free to do so. Of course it won’t focus it’s attention on Islamic extremism, even though it’s the biggest, most obvious threat right now.
So now we can’t protect America at large, we can only watch our immediate surroundings and protect ourselves. Stay alert, stay smart, means you stay alive.
Our elected government is focused on making happy those most important to it: the folks who supply campaign money. Until the biggest checks they get come from people committed to actually solving the country’s problems, our security and infrastructure will be allowed to crumble.
Open carry has its place . But remember an armed person in uniform or not in uniform is a target as three nyc policemen found out recently. Pray for their families. I carry consealed.
The local traffic cop is your first line of defense. He has a side arm, shotgun,
or AR-15 type weapons at his disposal. If the bad guy is already inside the shopping center you are on your own. Kevin James will not save you.
An American with a gun behind every blade of grass, both in and out of uniform…works for me. Don’t give ’em an inch.
To bad our government is run by so many statists and utopian progressives standing in the way of coordinated defense of the homeland.
Dunno. Can open carry defend this country from the federal government?
Yes, it can be a deterrence to terrorism, tyranny, invasion, and ordinary crime while also reminding the People that they have the individual right and duty to bear arms. It has the additional effect of countering some of the anti-gun indoctrination in our educational institutions, especially amongst children.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
While I tend to take ISIS internet threats with a lot of salt, there are many soft federal military targets in these states. Lines of cars at the gates every morning, outside of what little defense perimeter the installations have. Unfortunately these are easy to attack with fully automatic weapons and IED’s or grenades, well within terrorist capabilities to obtain. I would like to think that the military and security apparatus installations have snipers hidden for just this sort of event but given the recent history off base attacks I expect this is wishful thinking. How is a federal employee even in a state like VA or MI where personal handguns are acceptable to carry those weapons onto a disarmed federal installation? (From personal experience there are many parts of VA and MI where the terrorist would be dropped as fast as in Texas.) Given all this I am afraid the best solution is more local police outside gates of these facilities, especially in extremely hoplophobic jurisdictions like Maryland. The universities like Georgetown and Hopkins that are close with the State Department and CIA would be similarly ripe targets, with even less police protection and extreme anti-personal-carry attitudes. I am glad I live where there must be at least one personal weapon for every adult, and a very low crime rate outside of the usual parts of town.
“(From personal experience there are many parts of VA and MI where the terrorist would be dropped as fast as in Texas.)”
Podner, I’m thinkin’ you’re gonna have to prove that. I’m seeing the possibility of a lottery, or some manner of competition, here. We apparently have more players available, maybe VA could announce plans to burn a Koran on TV, then MI could announce plans to transport a few thousand feral hogs to the middle east. Then a comedian/announcer timing the elapsed time to dead morons, and we have a winner!
That’s one of the reasons why the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to be well armed. We are supposed to be the ones defending the United States.
There was mention of stealing a fire truck or 18 wheeler for terrorists to use. One problem: the don’t even have to steal a big rig. They can go to a school that will teach them to drive one and then turn them loose with it, in the matter of 2 months. Lots of immigrants driving big rigs these days.
Absolutely not. At least not from ALL terrorism. People with concealed or openly carried firearms can and do prevent and occasionally stop people out to do a mass shooting. But if someone really wants to pull off an attack and don’t want to use a gun they’ll switch it over to something else. Explosives, poison gas, biological agents, radiological material… the list of potential vectors for attack could go on and on for hours.
>It’s high time that average Americans make their peace with peace officers
There’s that “peace officer” lie again. Only used when bootlickers want to drum up some PR.
Please explain how today’s cops and their methods are peaceful.
Make peace with the peace officers and worry the hell out of the not-so-peaceful ones. 😉
I get the point that you’ve been making about selective use of the term. However, some of us use the term to denote an officer that is doing his or her level best to carry out duties within the original intent of the position; keeping the peace within the confines of acting according to the Constitution.
Then “peace officer” would be appropriate, but only if said officers refused to go on drug raids, seize property via civil forfeiture, harass people with stop-and-frisk, or accost people then make up excuses on “reasonable suspicion” afterwards.
The most amusing part of this article is a civilian using rhetoric normally reserved for cops or other government functionaries. The “terrorist” is today’s preferred bogeyman, used to cow and scare people into supporting police militarization and use of excessive and brutal tactics and procedures.
SWAT teams were formed in the 70’s ostensibly for hostage situations and bank robberies, but now over 95% of SWAT deployments are for drug-related search warrants, and the vast majority of those target unarmed homeowners with no record of violence. The “terrorist” lie is no different. The American homeowner has far more to fear from the police than some concocted “terrorist threat”.
Then “peace officer” would be appropriate, but only if said officers refused to go on drug raids, seize property via civil forfeiture, harass people with stop-and-frisk, or accost people then make up excuses on “reasonable suspicion” afterwards.
In the strict sense of the term, you are correct. I freely admit that my usage of “peace officer” has been stretched since I have yet to meet a law enforcement officer who truly fits the precise meaning of the term. AFAIK, there simply aren’t any actual modern peace officers.
The “terrorist” is today’s preferred bogeyman, used to cow and scare people into supporting police militarization and use of excessive and brutal tactics and procedures.
Agreed. I use the term “terrorist” when referring to government thugs as well. Sadly, the brutal, terroristic actions of some police units are somehow twisted to be evidence that we need greater police powers. It boggles my mind and pisses me off.
You have no argument from me on the rest of your comment either. I agree with you.
Criminals fear getting hurt; open carry sends them elsewhere concealed carry to different types of crime – read John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”
Terrorists, both Islamists and school shooters like Adam Lanza fear failure, not death. Pervasive concealed and open carry pushes them to soft targets. Unfortunately its Whack-a-mole untill we kill enough of them that they loose interest. Anybody know who Charles “The Hammer” Martel was? http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/army/p/martel.htm
I do now! Thanx for the link!
IMO Martel’s accomplishments rested on his ability to convince common foot soldiers that they could stand and face cavalry charges — and they did. That changed the face of warfare; thereafter Martel’s cavalry were truly mobile forces, able to strike as desired and know that there was a main body standing from to return to. And it baffled his foes, as European foot hadn’t played that important a part before.
But statists will learn the wrong lesson from Martel: that civilians are worthless amateurs, so it requires a large body of professionals to carry the day. They should instead. of course, remember Machiavelli, who understood that an armed populace is the ultimate strength of a prince.
If ISIL really wanted to cause havoc, they could start with coordinated attacks on power stations on a hot night. AK-47 rounds can destroy transformers, and the larger ones have a very long lead time. .50 BMGs could do the damage from a mile out.
Then they could go out and have a field day on literally powerless Americans.
Assault on California Power Station Raises Alarm on Potential for Terrorism April 2013 Sniper Attack Knocked Out Substation, Raises Concern for Country’s Power Grid
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579359141941621778
The WSJ article is behind a paywall. Here is another link to the story.
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/06/business/la-fi-grid-terror-20140207
Here is Time.com’s take on the potential danger of an attack to our grid.
“A major federal study on the vulnerability of the U.S. electric grid reportedly finds that taking out just nine of the country’s 55,000 electric-transmission substations—on a hot day when they’re stressed—could provoke a national blackout
Report: US Could Be Plunged Into Blackout by Minimal Attacks”
http://time.com/23281/report-u-s-could-be-plunged-into-blackout-by-minimal-attacks/
I’ve been preaching that for a while now.
Be as prepared as possible to survive a world with no A/C power.
Perhaps a repeal of Executive Orders 11905 (Ford) and 12036 (Carter)?
Did you notice that of the 5 states that they named two are where they are least likely to find armed people during normal activities?
“One approach: keep spending tens of billions of dollars on three-letter agencies, charging them with detecting and intercepting terrorist attacks. A method whose effectiveness is shrouded in secrecy and is, I might add, inherently
suspectineffective.”There, fixed that for you!
Hmm 71 targets. It is hunting season!
Btw, they can terrorize Illinois and California.
The more complicated the attack, the more complicated the preparation for the attack; conversely, the less complex the attack, the less planning needed to carry it out.
Joe Q. Public doesn’t have the time or resources to pick up on the well-coordinated attack. That’s where the Alphabet Soup Agencies come in.
We do have the means to stop Garland-esque attacks, and the moral onus is upon us to do so.
If you live in a state that does not permit you to own or carry, you’ve abdicated your moral responsibility.
The consequences of which aren’t my problem.
Its a culture war. It will be fought and won with culture, not bureaucracy, and not government intervention.
Nuke me from orbit,it’s the only way to be sure.
I for one am thrilled with the prospect of a war with a home field advantage. We’ve been playing away games for a 150 years now. Time for us to play some home games.
So much of this. Why are we bankrupting our grandchildren to take the fight to dirt caves? It costs the enemy nothing and we’re doing more damage to our own rights than they could have ever dreamed…
Bring it. Let the anti-gunners reap what they have sown, and repeatedly demonstrate, just like Galand, TX, that being armed makes more sense than paint a bull’s eye on your ass…
I still say: “The less a stranger knows about you, the better off you are” and that includes whether or not you are packing!
If the stranger is an animalistic criminal, they only think about what they can see. You’re projecting your intellect into a mind that lacks it in reality… If the bad guy doesn’t see a gun, you’re on the menu.
None of this is going to work. The country is lousy with terrorist wannabees. OC is just shoveling sand against the tide.
Even if it didn’t work, you would now have a large part of the People already on the street armed with long guns and handguns to use against enemies foreign and domestic. 😉
Although I do believe in the deterrent value of a public bearing arms openly and concealed everyday & everywhere, I’m more interested in them just being armed as much as possible. It needs to happen for whatever reasons.
Americans are tired of foreign wars, but attacks on home soil is the one thing that can be counted on to motivate large numbers of Americans to unleash hellfire until the middle east is a sheet of glass. I don’t know if ISIS knows this, but I guarantee you the hawks in Congress sure do. I thought that was going to happen in 2001 but they redirected that rage toward ends that left most of us wondering what the hell was going on over there. Most of us lost interest because we were shielded from the horrors and told the best thing to do was go on with our lives. Just slap a magnetic ribbon on the back of your car and pretend everything is ok! I’m still bitter about that, because here we are 14 years later dealing with the same sort of shit after giving up our freedom, ruining thousands of lives and wasting trillions of dollars. I don’t want my loved ones to be in harms way but the attacks seem to be coming here anyway and maybe if we have to defend ourselves here, at home, we’ll finally have the resolve to get the job done. We certainly can’t count on anyone else to do it for us.
No worries. On the porch. In my rocker. Polishing my 1911.
Open carry might have some small effect to deter a large direct attack, but neither OC or CC are going to stop a dude walking into a crowded area with a bomb in a backpack etc. Thats the thing about 4GW, its been touched upon quite a bit above, the population is the end prize. Control through fear is still control.
I would feel much safer if more people were walking around town with a rifle in a nice eberlestock bag. No muzzle sweeping and easy to deploy.
Nope…aren’t cops open carrying? Shot in the head? Hanging out in Garland?
Open carry of AKs and RPGs might not be a good idea. I am all for “open carry”. Easier to tell who I need to stay away from like the plague. They are gonna draw bullets first like a magnet draws iron. Choices are wonderful, enjoy yours.
Cool choice bro. Sorry to seeso many CCers treating facts the same way the anti’s do…
I am sure that politicians will use ISIS attacks as a basis for more gun control. For most Americans, I really do not see ISIS as a big threat. A bigger threat is getting into a car crash caused by a myopic driver while texting.
Can Open Carry Save America from Terrorism? Probably not as most domestic terror is caused by people driving cars while drunk or texting.
A more insidious danger is the ever increasing number of computers in vehicles. Guys watching porno on the vehicle’s computer screens while driving and, all of a sudden, having the steering wheel lock up.
Yes. Next question?
How many deaths due to terrorism are required before they’re more of a concern than poisoning?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/05/robert-farago/incendiary-image-of-the-day-unintentional-injuries-edition/
So we have proof ISIS said this ? Maybe they are just bull shitting us. Who writes this anyway ? Sorry but 90 % of this I have to call bull shit on . And for ISIS if your real in the US just bring it bitches. When were done I am making BLT’s for everyone 🙂
OC, but also wear a t-shirt declaring that your hollow points are stuffed with bacon.
Comments are closed.