Andy, you’re quite right. What worries me is that so many of the enemies within control newpapers. And they’re using them to maximum effect.

As to the train senario? I’d rather have the opportunity to defend against such an incident, as opposed to victim disarmorment…

Michael H, I’m more worried about the ememy within. Marines can kill terrorists all day long, but when we have PC permiated everywhere, hits morale bigtime. I believe that is a large problem with the army. Kids join the nat’l guard to get college money and “discipline,” as opposed to killing bodies all day and night. Transnational Progressivism is really damaging our soicety, and I believe that will be even harder than combating islamo-fascism.

Michael, I agree that this idea, which is not even really a proposal, would have a very minor impact on terrorism, if any. The point that I was more interested in was that Lord Salisbury took as a given that a major component, if not the primary one, of public safety even from a foreign threat was an active citizenry. The people in those days did not have a state which was very powerful by modern standards, and they did not expect the state to do much for them. The idea that the president would point at the TV camera and say, “you, the citizens of America, are the only ones who can defend America. The government will do what it can, but you are the front line”, is impossible to imagine. But it is actually true.

But that takes us only a tiny distance on the way to combatting terrorism. If they can’t depend on guns to terrorize a populace, the perps will simply change tactics – to explosives for instance. Being well armed does nothing for you while sitting on a train if the guy two seats back is carrying a briefcase full of C4 and ball bearings. You’re still dead, just well armed and dead.

How did we win the war against the communists? By opposing their every attempt at expansion, rolling them back by supporting those who fought against them with both guns and money and – with our allies – denying them access to technology and money. It took four decades to achieve victory. I suspect it’s going to take at least that long to win against the jihadis. We’re in for a long, bloody fight.

1. We’ve got to keep the defeat of islamo-fascism as the centerpoint of our foreign policy.
2. We’ve got to coordinate a common policy to fight them with all interested parties: the Europeans, the Russians, the Asians.
3. Within the Middle East, we need to condition our financial support of regimes in place on their willingness to fight the jihadis. This would include Egypt and Jordan.
4. We’ve got to deny the jihadis cash. The Saudis are the worst offenders.
5. Isolate Iran more completely. Deny them cash by removing their ability to sell oil. Consider airstrikes against their nuclear facilities and terrorist traing camps.
6. Stick with the Iraqis. Do whatever is necessary to defeat the terrorists. Iraq is battlefield number one right now. We can’t lose there.
7. We’ve got to monitor mosques in the West as if they were islamist HQ’s, which they sometimes are. Arrest and imprison those imams and moslems who call for or support jihad. It’s sedition. Make it a life-in-prison penalty.
8. Begin recruiting heavily among Arab-Americans for intel operations.
9. Build a new generation of heavy bombers. We’re going to need them. Target price: $250 million/copy. Very doable. Right down Boeing’s alley.
10. Begin developing the admin and technology to inspect and track every ship and boat in the world, much as we do with aircraft.

The main opposition to the wide-scale carrying of weapons by ordinary people is likely to come from politicians and police bureaucrats, not from other citizens.

BTW, why does it have to be concealed? That’s so Sept 10.