I notice a lot of you guys didn't even read the quote, much less the guy's article; he isn't saying this attack method would be worse in America because we have guns. He's saying that if America had as many of those blood-thirsty Muslims as France has, we'd be awash in slaughter by now due to everyone's ready access to means of death and dismemberment, so we'd better treat ours properly lest they go off the reservation and take our heads.
It's actually a disgracefully crude argument impugning the character of an entire class of people, themselves fairly diverse, and also self-defeating (i.e. an impossible situation) in America precisely because of the much-maligned firearms he so fears in the hands of Muslims.
Extremist islamics declare Jihad.
An extremist Islamic shoots up Fort Hood.
A pair of extremist Islamics blow up Boston.
A group of extremist Islamics knock down both world trade centers, smoke the pentagon with another airliner, and make a crater somewhere in Pennsylvania with a 4th.
... etc.
At some point it STOPS being profiling and starts being ACCURATE.
Hardcore extremist Islamic Jihadists are just that - holy war crusaders bent on destroying "our" way of life.
This is not a SLIGHT against Islam or Muslims in the least. This is FACT.
They *declared
holy war against the rest of the world and now they are taking on targets of opportunity*.
Let us not lose sight of that. This isn't a religious issue, per se, this is a subset of a religious organization - one culture, Islamic Jihadists - which is out to disrupt, undermine, and destroy another culture,
ours.
The fact that Americans --Muslim or otherwise-- have ready access to means of defense or resistance in this country puts a damper on just how much we seek to abuse one another, for any reason. The only areas this would not be the case, are precisely the areas where the citizens have been disarmed much like Paris.
The 2nd amendment could protect our religious freedom (inadvertently) by giving us the right (however suicidal it might be at any given time) to attempt to overthrow a civil government which is persecuting their religion or beliefs; in other words, a government which is itself bent on purging 'unwanted' cultural groups from it's general population.
In this regards, Muslims have protection on the 2nd amendment (although it is definitely arguable how well protected ANY of us are with the 2nd amendment, considering the sheer military power of the current civilian police forces).
It ALSO means that any subset of the population which feels the desire to do so may
attempt to overthrow the government or disrupt civilian government; or even terrorize the general population. The 2nd amendment is a double edge sword, in this fashion.
Was that what it was meant for? In a roundabout way, yes, as a 'tyrannical' government is largely a matter of *perception* of the individual. Yes, we have a collective feeling, but it's still an individual viewpoint altered by the individual's world-view.
So far, fortunately, we've seen lone wolf or paired attacks. But something like Paris is *definitely* possible in the US - with or without the 2nd amendment. (A suitably motivated terrorist without direct access to guns - say, all guns are banned - would simply kill a lone police officer to gain access to his weapons, then move on to the locale where they will perpetrate the attack. In this regards the 2nd amendment is moot, any arms available - anywhere - will be on the shopping list for someone already decided on murder and terrorism as a valid tactic.)
You are spot on in the rest of your argument that a lone or small group of terrorists cannot continue on an insurrection
indefinitely in the United States as - even
if they had sufficient numbers of volunteers - they lack one vital component to such a campaign - a
safe harbor. The Viet Cong had gray borders they could slip across at will, which we couldn't violate (generally speaking). The Iraqi's and Afghans just dropped their weapons and blended back in to the populations after an attack - we couldn't kill the unarmed civilians. So in 20 seconds they go from shooting at US soldiers to "safe"; our soldiers spent most of their time hunting for (or hunkering down from) ghosts. Here in the states there is no "safe harbor" for them to seek refuge which isn't to a large degree mitigated (made less 'safe harborish') by currently deployed technology.
The 2nd amendment DOES and DOESN'T figure in, in various ways.
Yes, it gives minority groups (religious or otherwise) protection when they are persecuted.
It also gives minority groups (even extreme minorities, "jihadists" in this case) access to (very basic) small arms.
It give mundane civilians the means to protect themselves when others (even extreme minority groups) attempt to do violence on the general population.
Heck, it even grants the
ability for two minority groups to slug it out against one another. (Notice I didn't say "right" - I said "ability").
Many of the above examples are properly classified as rights
abuses since the intention of the 2nd amendment is to target, specifically, either a hostile domestic government or foreign invader. But, it is what it is.
The instrument isn't the issue, how it's used, is the issue.
Murder, and terrorism, are both very, very serious crimes.
Whether or not guns used in the acting out of those two offenses is largely irrelevant - the actors (in this case, Islamic Jihadists) simply don't
care. Their world view has skewed their vision to the point they view our
entire society as acceptable collateral damage. Our
way of life is the enemy.
I tried to remain objective in this post - by no means do I want to get involved in a religious discussion. This isn't strictly a religious issue.
It's one (subset of a) culture waging war on another culture.
Let us not lose sight of that.
For any author to say that "the 2nd amendment makes Islamic Jihad possible inside the United States"...
Well, that's actually accurate, to a degree.
But, it's a shell game argument, as it is still possible even with a complete LACK of the 2nd amendment.
