Got Homeland Security?
Posted on 08/25/2004 11:40:17 AM PDT by TERMINATTOR
Gun-control laws, like all ill-advised measures, have unintended, often unfortunate, consequences. This is especially true in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, environment.
Recently, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge upgraded the nation's alert status because of credible intelligence that several financial buildings in New York City; Newark, N.J.; and Washington, D.C. - including the building housing the New York Stock Exchange - are intended terrorist targets. Immediately, heavily armed, submachine-gun-toting government agents surrounded the buildings - five in all - and tightened security in the area. Police closed streets, rerouted traffic, established checkpoints and searched vehicles in the vicinity.
What about other potential targets? While federal, state and local police were guarding these buildings, who was guarding the thousands of other potential targets throughout the United States? How long can this level of security be maintained at these five buildings? What if the terrorists wait until the extra security is removed, and then act? What if they strike at unguarded buildings somewhere else?
This is where the wisdom of our founders comes into play. They advocated a nation-at-arms where everyone who wished would be armed. They went so far as to guarantee this right in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As men of wisdom, intelligence and education, they knew that no one can always predict the type of threat the nation might face. So they prepared for every eventuality by providing not only for national and state military (and naval) forces, but also for an armed populace.
Why? Beyond the obvious need to counterbalance government gone awry, they understood that point defense is better than area defense. That is, a building, farm house, home, bridge or road intersection is easier to defend with few people than is a collection of buildings, farm houses or homes, or a wider geographic area. Since national and state forces are, by their very nature and numbers, insufficient to provide point defense of all such structures and places, it stands to reason that the owners or inhabitants of these structures and places would be in a better position to guard and defend them. Besides, they would have a vested interest in doing so. The national and state forces would then be free to conduct offensive operations to subdue any hostile force rather than scatter its limited resources throughout the country attempting to defend inadequately everyone's home or business. A potential enemy would also be faced with defeating several layers of defenders and suffering the continued resistance of the populace if the organized forces were defeated, as in Iraq today.
However, gun control has made point defense of every possible target difficult if not impossible. If citizens were free to procure whatever firearms they desired without interference from government, as they should be, then the owners and occupiers of homes and businesses could provide their own high level of security using whatever weapons they considered appropriate, such as submachine guns. Government forces could then concentrate their limited resources in manpower, funds, and equipment to seek out and destroy the terrorists without having to worry about guarding every possible static structure a terrorist might attack.
We have ample evidence of how successful point defense by owners and inhabitants can be. During the Los Angeles riots of 1992, following the acquittal of the policemen charged with beating Rodney King, the National Guard and police refused to engage the looters and rioters. But several merchants - mostly Korean - used semi-automatic "assault rifles" with high-capacity magazines to successfully fend them off and saved their businesses. In 1999, a man armed with a handgun took three hostages at a shooting range in San Mateo, Calif. An employee took a gun from the range and shot the gunman, freeing the hostages.
Instead of hamstringing people with myriad gun-control measures, governments at all levels should encourage them to arm and train themselves.
Funds for homeland security would thus be better spent, American military and security forces relieved of an impossible task, and homeland security enhanced.
Got Homeland Security?
Very good article. If the US airline passengers were allowed to carry weapons we would not be at war.
The Constitution is quite clear about weapons. Arms are necessary for the "security of a free state".
Interesting,but probably more expensive and less effective in the long run.
To get around rigid gun-control laws (not likely to change soon)places like Prudential would have to hire armed rent-a-cops,who would,for the most part be inept(by reason of lack of experience),over-cautious (by reason of fears of astronomical lawsuits),easily-influenced (by company executives screaming at them when they do their jobs properly),and constantly subject to harassment from the media,petty officials, and (you guessed it) the police.
Why do you need to hire anyone? Why not just let citizens carry guns?
Great post. I'm armed and ready.
28.1% in "Right Restricted" (9"May Issue") states, and
7.8% in "Right Denied" (4) states
http://www.moccw.org/map.html
IIRC Most state laws enabling concealed carry have all been liberalized in the last ten or twenty years. Notice that California stands alone. Public opinion could change rapidly and they do have a tradition of using voter initiative to bypass the state legislature.
More people armed and alert is LESS efective, and only gov employees (less people) is MORE effective? Makes no sense to me.
Those Koreans storekeepers shooting looters during the LA riots, didn't cost the taxpayers one cent. What's cheaper than free security? In fact they saved the cost of trials and incarceration, while making the streets safer.
The point of the column is to encourage getting rid of those laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.