IN August, a New York Times article quoted former ISIS recruit Harry Sarfo, now serving time in prison in Germany, as saying that Americans are “dumb” for not having more restrictive gun laws.
“For America and Canada, it’s much easier for them to get them over the social network, because they say the Americans are dumb—they have open gun policies,” Sarfo said from a prison in Germany. “They say we can radicalize them easily, and if they have no prior record, they can buy guns, so we don’t need to have a contact man who has to provide guns for them.”
Predictably, domestic anti-gun groups jumped on Sarfo’s judgment as “proof” that America’s rejection of forcible citizen disarmament is a boon for terrorists.
This is nothing new, of course. In 2011, American “gun control” groups were delighted to find an ally in U.S.- born al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, who in a video clip ostensibly intended for jihadi sympathizers in the U.S. made the blatantly false claim that at U.S. gun shows, one could easily purchase fully automatic firearms without a background check.
So taken were these groups with the idea of having a genuine terrorist echoing their own claims that the lack of oppressive gun laws in the U.S. helps terrorists kill Americans that they shouted Gadahn’s words from the rooftops.
Another rather critical point that domestic gun-ban zealots don’t seem to want to talk about is that these terrorist groups are far from stupid, especially with regard to communicating their venom to the rest of the world. ISIS in particular has earned grudging respect for its social media savvy.
So are we to believe that these groups would tell us how our policies make their efforts easier? They may or may not have read the Napoleon quote, “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake,” but the general concept can hardly have escaped them.
I’m not saying that when ISIS comes to America, they won’t commit their evil with firearms bought on the civilian market. They likely realize that doing so will greatly help make the case that America’s lack of restrictive gun laws helps them kill Americans, although they might choose a “gunfree” zone to minimize the chance of effective resistance.
They can count on “gun control” advocacy groups and the mass media not bothering to point that part out, or to point out the horrid carnage they have wrought in Europe, where gun laws are as draconian as a “gun control” group (or a jihadist group) could ask for.
But then again, ISIS is not in the habit of bothering to “ask for” anything, including draconian gun policies. When the group took control of Mosul, Iraq, among the rules they imposed on those unfortunates who had not escaped the city was this gem: “No public gathering other than those organized by ISIS will be allowed at any stage. No guns will be allowed outside of its ranks.”
Yeah, freedom of speech appeals to them no more than the right to keep and bear arms does.
In other words, ISIS and their ideological allies want ultra-restrictive gun laws, and for pretty much the same reason that domestic gun-ban zealots do—disarmed people are far easier to subjugate and dominate.
But the jihadis realize that their best hope for getting such policies enacted in the U.S. is to help domestic gun-ban zealots deceive the public into believing that restrictive gun laws would do more to thwart their agenda than a well-armed American citizenry would. And America’s “gun control” advocates are only too happy to accept that help.
Those who would condemn the American people to abject serfdom, whether motivated by zeal for what they have perverted their religious faith into, or by condescending, collectivist ambition to “save” us from ourselves, will be stopped only if the American people have the means to stop them. Harsh language isn’t going to get it done.
And that is why both types of the enemies of the American people want to deny us access to those means.
It is often said that the jihadists “hate us for our freedoms,” and that may very well be the case. So what would the gun-ban zealots have us do—appease them by unilaterally surrendering those freedoms? And these people call us “traitors!”
