“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.