The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were primarily successful due to two contributing factors: 1) Terrorists entered the United States illegally, without incident, due to our government's total disregard for existing immigration laws, and 2) There were no armed pilots or other armed personnel onboard the airliners. Despite increased measures in security, the passing of the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, factors 1 and 2 above remain largely unchanged.

From as far back as October 2001, there have been media reports of illegal human smuggling of OTM's (Other Than Mexican) into the United States from Mexico. OTM's reportedly include people from the former Soviet Union, Asia, and the Middle East. Similar migrations are reportedly occurring in our border to the north, as Canada is widely known as a terrorist haven. And we know of at least one attempt on behalf of the terrorists to set up a training camp in camp in Oregon.

At this point, there could be any number of terrorist cells operating within the United States' borders. They could be anywhere in the country and could possibly have succeeded in setting up one or more training camps. Furthermore, any additional number of terrorists could be illegally crossing into the U.S. via Mexico or Canada. They could also be entering on any commercial airline, ship, cargo container, or via other means.

We know that terrorists target civilians as well as military personnel. They capitalize on both mass murder, such as the attacks on 9/11, and on individual torture such as the numerous beheadings that continue to occur in the Middle East. By brutally torturing and murdering civilians, the terrorists hope to create a pacifist movement for military retreat as was the case in Italy's recent election and recent South Korean demonstrations for retreat.

Gun-banning politicians and organizations seem all too willing to help facilitate such a retreat by continuing to push for further restrictions on civilian firearm ownership. They have the nerve to claim that additional restrictions, which really only affect law-abiding citizens, are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. Such an argument is disingenuous at best.

While the United States government has done an exceptional job in preventing any additional domestic attacks to date, the American people should at least consider the possibility of one or more future attacks, especially when you consider the total lack of concern from the Mexican and Canadian governments about terrorists entering the U.S. Depending on the severity of such a situation, the American people may take it upon themselves to employ a civilian defense force. This may be the only realistic way of providing protection for every home and every neighborhood in the country.

Disarment comes in two forms. It comes in the form of taking away guns people already have. And it comes in the form of denying people the ability to acquire future guns through banning, limiting the number and frequency of purchases, frivolous lawsuits, and through other means. Our nation is in a time of war and could realistically experience additional domestic attacks. Why does the gun-ban crowd still want to disarm us?

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org