The Best Security Is a Well-Armed Citizenry

ToogoodReports.com ^ | 09/04/2003 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[sheltonmac]

With the second anniversary of 9/11 just around the corner, rumors and theories about another possible terrorist attack are in abundant supply. According to a recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, 54 percent of Americans think that more attacks are likely during the next few weeks, and 80 percent believe that terrorists are already in the U.S. and are prepared to strike at any time.

There must be reason for concern--even the federal government has stepped up efforts to make it appear as if it is doing something to provide for the common defense. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced on Monday his intentions to deputize 5,000 more sky marshals, calling it "another way we're meeting our goal to maximize resources to better protect our citizens."

Some may see this as a sign that the government is getting serious about fighting terrorism. Others may see it for what it is: yet another example of the government's unmatched ability to insult the intelligence of its citizens.

Far be it from me to suggest that our elected (and un-elected) representatives in the federal government are more concerned about their political careers than the actual security of the nation, but Sec. Ridge missed the perfect opportunity to call for a restoration of the Second Amendment. If there was ever a time to use the bully pulpit, this was it.

By refusing to even address the right to keep and bear arms, the feds are sending the message that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted. "We will protect you," they are saying. "Just go about your lives and let us do the job you are paying us to do. Don't worry your pretty little heads about arming yourselves. Only government law enforcement officers are qualified to carry firearms!"

You might take some comfort in knowing that there may or may not be an armed marshal that could try to thwart the plans of the terrorist or terrorists who may or may not be on your flight. But wouldn't it be more sensible--not to mention more cost-effective--to simply allow pilots and passengers to defend themselves?

The effort to arm commercial airline pilots is virtually non-existent. It took over a year-and-a-half to even get the program implemented, and now the government claims that the pilots who have actually been trained to carry a gun number only in the hundreds. With around 35,000 flights every day in this country, that doesn't sound too reassuring.

The hope some people have in seeing a bureaucratic solution to a problem created by bureaucrats would be laughable if it wasn't so disturbing. I think we have all seen the results of Washington's idea of airport security. Isn't it about time we start hounding our representatives to start respecting the Constitution they swore to preserve, protect and defend?

What the politicians in Washington just can't seem to understand is that, despite all of their efforts, the U.S. is still relatively defenseless. In the time it takes to implement Ridge's plan to hire more sky marshals, thousands more Americans could become prey for blood-thirsty terrorists.

We could have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in the Middle East. We could start drafting teenagers for military service and send them off to die overseas. We could wage war against everyone who dares to look at us the wrong way, but no matter what we do to help us sleep better at night, there is no defense against the brand of terrorism we saw on 9/11 like a well-armed citizenry. The sooner the government realizes that, the safer all of us will be.

[sheltonmac]

*ping*

[JohnGalt]

Bravo!

[humblegunner]

Ping.

[Fudd]

...there is no defense against the brand of terrorism we saw on 9/11 like a well-armed citizenry. The sooner the government realizes that, the safer all of us will be.

Unfortunately, many in government realize that the best defence against an overreaching government is also a well-armed citizenry. The rats can't have that now, can they.

[gedeon3]

Right on.

[Joe Brower]

[Zebra]

I am for the unabridged Second Amendment right to bear arms, except in limited cases that make common sense. For example, guns in courtrooms are not a good idea. Check them at the door. Ditto on airliners. If your comment ("But wouldn't it be more sensible--not to mention more cost-effective--to simply allow pilots and passengers to defend themselves?" ) is to suggest we would be safer if all commercial airline passengers were armed, I strongly disagree. The odds of a drunk/kook/careless flier bringing down a plane are significantly greater than a terrorist doing so. IMHO.

[sheltonmac]

The odds of a drunk/kook/careless flier bringing down a plane are significantly greater than a terrorist doing so.

It's my belief that responsible gun owners far outnumber the kooks, and that would most likely be the case on commercial flights.

[Shadow Deamon]

"The odds of a drunk/kook/careless flier bringing down a plane are significantly greater than a terrorist doing so. IMHO."

A bullet hole or three or four wouldn't bring down a plane any more that throwing a spit ball at the window. A good frangeable round would do very little damage. There are two holes in the cabin bigger than your head that regulate cabin pressure, so a bullet hole wouldn't make a bit of difference.

[dogbrain]

"...except in limited cases..."

I hope you don't have a whole list of "limited cases"....

[ex-snook]

Thanks for ping.

The 'war on terrorism' is as phony as the 'war on poverty' or the 'war on drugs'. It is never-ending nation building in Washington with 'wars on nouns' as political slogans.

The 'war on poverty' did not end poverty. The 'war on drugs' did not end drugs. The 'war on terrorism' will not provide security.

[Dead Corpse]

Simple numbers. What is a more effective deterrent against an army the size of China's with their 2 million+? An armed citizenry.

There are some 290 million+ people in the US as of the last census. If only 1% carried, we'd have an "on the spot" armed force of superior numbers. There are some 80 million gun owners in the US. About half of which would probably carry at any given time if given a chance.

Not even Kim Jong Il would be insane enough to invade a country with a "standing army" of 40 million.

[TXnMA]

Not even Kim Jong Il would be insane enough to invade a country with a "standing army" of 40 million.

A "standing army" is unconstitutional. Make that a "standing citizen militia" and I'll buy it.

[Dead Corpse]

That's why it was in qoutes. ;-)

[TERMINATTOR]

Amen!

Militia - Got Liberty?

[btcusn]

The odds of a drunk/kook/careless flier bringing down a plane are significantly greater than a terrorist doing so. IMHO.


Have to dispute this one. It'a a old wives tale, unless he shoots the pilot, 1 man with a gun has a very small chance of bringing down a airliner, and explosive decompression from gunshots is nothing more than a neat looking movie scene.

Jack

[45Auto]

When I hear the phrase "common-sense gun control", I reach for my pistol.

[45Auto]

The Constitutional Militia is alive and well; by last count over 100 million American citizens owned at least one firearm. Shall issue carry laws have been passed in over 30 states. A carfeul reading of the Constitution makes it clear that not only do we have a right to keep and bear, we also have a DUTY to be armed. If 5% of the citizenry was carrying at any given time (including on commercial flights) that would be a strong deterrent to not only petty thieves but to those intent on terrorist acts. A lot of liberal idiots say that " a gun would not protect you from an exploding jetliner." Maybe not, but if I am armed, and I see lunatics preparing to carry out such an act, you can be damn sure that some of those bastards are going to see Allah a little sooner than they had planned. I note that many such incidents have been prevented or at least had the impact lessened in Israel by armed citizens.

[ninenot]

The odds of a drunk/kook/careless flier bringing down a plane are significantly greater than a terrorist doing so. IMHO.

Precisely HOW would a drunk/kook/careless flier (?) "bring down" a plane?