Thursday, December 3, 2015 6:30 am

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, which were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists; and the San Bernadino, Calif., attack, in which Islamic fundamentalism has not been ruled out, the likelihood is there that these types of attacks could become a part of daily life in America, a slow drip of terror seeking to weaken our resolve and destroy our way of life.

If so, then the term citizen soldiers has a brand new meaning, for if we are the target, we must be enabled to defend ourselves in time of war.

Some in the government floated new strategies on Wednesday as events unfolded in San Bernadino, where 14 were killed and 17 wounded at a county facility that serviced those with disability issues.

Whereas in the past the message from officials and law enforcement was to shelter in place if possible, or escape, now the nuance of "take 'em out if you can" has been added.

Yet at the same time President Obama and liberal pundits are wringing their hands and saying it's time to tighten gun laws.

If we as citizens are the new targets, perhaps we, as citizens, should be better armed, not have our guns taken away.

Would you send U.S. soldiers to fight ISIS in Syria with no weapons?

Most, given the option, would prefer to never be the victim of attacks like those in San Bernadino on Wednesday.

But if we were, we think most of us would rather have a chance to take a few out before they get us.

You can't do that if you're not armed.

When you're at war with terrorists who prey on civilians, why would you take away civilians' firearms?

- HT