There are roughly 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the United States of America, a republic of 319 million (known, legal) souls.
Only a small fraction of them are on duty at any given time, and not all of them are patrol officers. Those officers out on the streets protecting the American people from criminals and terrorists have patrol areas measured in square miles, and it isn’t uncommon for a handful of sheriff’s deputies to have to patrol areas that are larger than some European principalities. In some parts of the nation, a call to 911 might not be answered within an hour, if it is even answered at all.
This week, our friendly neighbors to the north in Canada twice received a taste of Islamist terrorism.
One “lone wolf” Muslim convert loyal to the Islamic State used a vehicle to run over two Canadian soldiers, killing one of them. The terrorist emerged from the car after wrecking it with a knife in his hand, and was shot and killed.
Yesterday, a second Canadian “lone wolf” Muslim convert murdered a guard at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, Ontario, before storming into the Parliament building. He was shot and killed, reportedly by the sergeant-at-arms, just outside caucus rooms filed with legislators.
In both of these instances, the terrorists chose targets with nearby armed security. These terrorists will not always be so careless with their fanaticism.
Future Islamist terrorists will be smart enough to attack the “soft targets” counter-terrorism professionals have been warning us about for years.
They’ll target places where a large number of people gather, and the smarter terrorists will chose their targets carefully, either striking outside the security perimeter, striking uniformed security first, or choosing targets with no security at all.
Invariably, they’ll chose the same sort of targets that mass murderers have chosen in the past, the so-called “gun free zones” where official armed security is light and the right of personal self-defense has been stripped by edicts written by misguided.
Over the next few weeks, Americans across the country will have a chance to cast ballots to determine who their legislators and leaders will be for the next electoral cycle, with candidates on the local, state, and national level.
Voters should take a long, hard look at the records and beliefs of the candidates on their ballots as they pertain to the civil right of self-defense.
Some of these candidates—primarily, but not always Democrats—hold the dangerous collectivist view that disarming the citizenry will result in a safer society, and result in fewer deaths and terrorist attacks. As recent events have born out in Canada, and our own past experience with mass shooters and terrorists have born out time and again, the “gun free zones” these politicians have created are our most vulnerable targets.
Some of these candidates—primarily, but not always Republicans—understand that when these horrific attacks do come (and they will), the attackers almost always target a “gun free zone.” They also understand that these attacks almost always end when a good guy with a gun breaches that “gun free zone” to become a threat to the mass murderers and terrorists.
We need to elect legislators that understand that we need to do away with the proven-false fantasy of “gun free zones” that only disarm the law-abiding, creating soft targets out of those we hold most dear as the go to school, shop, attend sporting events, and worship.
We need to elect candidates that respect the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights, and who don’t pick and choose the parts of the Constitution they want to defend as they seek to exploit your rights to expand their power.
“Gun free zones” are death traps, inviting terrorists and mass murderers to ply their evil.
Vote smart, my fellow citizens.
Your lives, and the lives of those you love, depend on voting out those politicians that create those “gun free zones” that mass murderers and terrorists are so eager to exploit.