An incident last week in Israel makes the case as to how U.S. gun-control groups could be considered terrorist allies.
According to a Feb. 22 story published in The Jerusalem Post, a Palestinian terrorist was attempting to set off an explosive device in yet another crowded Israeli market, when an "alert shopper" recognized what he was doing and "shot him dead."
"A police source told Israel Radio the terrorist apparently intended to detonate a small bomb in the supermarket and then blow himself up with the explosive belt when police forces came to the scene," the paper said -- a "tragedy" that "was averted when a woman shopping in the packed supermarket apparently saw the terrorist trying to set off a second explosion and shot him twice in the head from close range."
It's good that in Israel -- a country that is no stranger to terrorism -- someone besides the government is responsible for the security and safety of citizens. Oh, to be as trusted with that responsibility here at home.
It's an equally good thing that the lives of those Israeli shoppers weren't in the hands of a woman like Sarah Brady, head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. If they had been, there's no telling how many more Israeli shoppers would be dead today.
That's because her group, along with dozens of other gun-control organizations, would rather Americans be killed by terrorists instead of being able to protect ourselves, our families and our communities. They would rather see terrorism snuff out freedom and liberty than have Americans use freedom and liberty to snuff out terrorism.
In fact, supporting any policy that leaves Americans less secure -- especially in this time of war -- is akin to providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Policies that encourage disarmament invite attack. Such policies play into the hands of our terrorist enemies.
Our enemies know this. They would love nothing more than to ensure their next American targets remain unarmed. So why are gun-control groups advocating disarmament too? Whose side are they on?
Personally, I'm tired of being told by the pious victimologists who run these groups that I'm not "qualified" to carry a firearm -- even into a school to pick up my children or into a courthouse to do county business -- though I am and have been for several years.
I'm also tired of being told by "officialdom" that I must "qualify" for the Second Amendment to claim and utilize its guarantees, though it is the only constitutional right that must meet this stringent, narrow standard.
I'm tired of being told by Marxist control freaks that I am a model citizen only if I allow myself to be victimized by some lunatic Muslim extremist who hates me because of my religion and/or nationality.
I'm tired of being told by hypocrite lawmakers -- who have personal security I help provide via my tax dollars -- that they are worthy of enhanced protection, but that I and my family are not.
As long as anti-gun groups, working in cooperation with the little Napoleons on Capitol Hill and in statehouses across the land, continue to favor laws that restrict the right of Americans to carry a weapon anywhere and everywhere, terrorists will be aided and abetted.
No one knows where the next terrorist strike will occur or what form it will take. Therefore Congress and the president could boost national security immensely just by dismantling goofy gun-control laws that do nothing but aid our enemies. A free people demand no less than the ability to help protect themselves and their country. A better-armed populace would do much to accomplish that goal.
Meanwhile, if gun controllers want to continue their quest to be terrorist fodder, fine. That's their right.
Lucky for them, they aren't asked to "qualify" for the right to be foolishly unprotected.
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily, and author of the special report, "Election 2000: How the Military Vote Was Suppressed."