In a stunning editorial yesterday, the Washington Times used events earlier this week half the world away in Australia to bluntly illustrate why, instead of eroding the Second Amendment, this nation should be strengthening and nurturing the right to keep and bear arms that the amendment affirms and protects.
Pointing to the detention of 15 people at a dozen locations by Australian police – including at least one whose alleged intent was to kidnap and behead an Australian citizen at random as an act of terror to show the reach of the barbaric group – the newspaper noted that such a thing might not be possible here. “It would be sheer folly,” the Times editorialized, “for ISIS to attempt to blindside a Marine in Texas, Virginia or a point between. A terrorist might land a lucky punch, but it’s likely that if the Marine can’t shoot back, a bystander will.”
But there is a more telling sentence in the editorial that says it all about the mindset of gun prohibitionists, whether they sit in Congress or state legislatures, or promote ballot measures that seek to discourage and disarm American citizens. “Liberals who preach the gospel of accommodation, negotiation and disarmament will never understand,” the Times observes. That’s all the newspaper needed to say.
Failure to understand that bad people are not deterred by good intentions or feel-good legislation is far too often clarified in the final moments of normality, just as something really awful happens. Second Amendment advocates have repeatedly argued that gun control laws enacted over the years have primarily impacted the wrong people.
By some estimates, there are more than 11 million Americans who are today licensed to carry defensive sidearms. In Washington, the number is somewhere above 466,600 active CPLs. In an emergency, where people are being harmed, either by street thugs or terrorist loons, would you rather be helped by someone with good intentions or someone with a gun?
The delusion of disarmament has many symptoms, but one common outcome, and it is typically bad. People who think that making it harder for law-abiding people to own firearms will prevent criminals from committing crimes are not simply wrong, they are wrong-headed. Add the potential of a terrorist agenda as described by Australian authorities and this business of self-defense takes on a whole new dimension.
As Breitbart noted this morning, Texas Gov. Rick Perry made it clear to Fox News’ Sean Hannity that there are grave concerns along the southern border. There are reports that a few people with alleged terrorist ties have already been apprehended this month in his state.
The play, if one accepts the reasoning of the Washington Times editorial page, has shifted from simply being armed as a defense against street thugs, as record numbers of Americans who have obtained concealed carry permits and licenses seem to be saying, to being able to defend one’s self and family from savages. Anyone who thinks it can’t happen here must have slept through Sept. 11, 2001.
The Washington Times editorial concluded with a bit of advice that gun prohibitionists will doubtless dismiss as paranoia from the right. “The answer to the terrorists and jihadists is not to surrender our rights and liberties,” the newspaper said, “but to embrace them.”