"George? It's Tony. About that Second Amendment..."

The Independent today reports claims more than 10,000 Muslims in Britain have had at least basic training in small arms and simple explosives. But it gets worse.

"There has been a debate on whether we are facing an insurgency or terrorism," said the source, "and the verdict is on the side of an insurgency."

So, our British allies, which have all but outlawed practical self defense with firearms and even cooking knives, find themselves in the lamentable position of feeling like naked sheep before armed wolves.

Granted, this story doesn't quite pass the smell test, seeming to be highly sensationalized. 10,000 people who know how to something doesn't equate 10,000 people that will use that knowledge for nefarious purposes. There are tens millions of people in Britain who know both how to drive and how to toss back a pint, but I haven't heard of governmental worries of an insurgency of drunk drivers... though it might explain why they all drive on the wrong side of the road…

No, I doubt there is a real insurgency or intifada threat to England, but I also know that any threat of that sort is far more likely to succeed in a disarmed society like Britain than it ever would in the United States.

Remember the North Hollywood shootout? Two heavily-armed criminals with body armor terrorized Los Angeles for 44 minutes, and the LAPD was almost powerless to stop them. Police officers were forced to grab rifles from civilian gun stores, as their police weapons (incidentally, of the same 9x19mm caliber as the pistols and sub-machineguns of British police) were no match for the criminal's armor.

This was a robbery gone bad, perpetrated by just two men. Now imagine a dozen fireteams of 3-4 terrorists, armed with AK-47s and covered in body armor, set loose upon a major metropolitan city.

Normal police weapons such as pistols and submachine guns will not workagainst most body armor, even with multiple hits. In return, the 7.62x39mm round of the AK-47 cuts though most police-issue body armor like a hot knife through butter. It has all the makings of a slaughter.

SWAT teams will not be able to respond quickly due to the chaos, and even in those locations where they can respond, they will respond late (SWAT teams are made up of regular officers who must report to a centralized location to be outfitted before an engagement), and they will be unprepared for a force-on-force battle in the open (most SWAT teams are prepared for CQB assaults on fixed positions) against a trained enemy.

That leaves the city in question largely defended by under-armed (or in Britain, unarmed) patrol officers, and the citizens that decide that taking action into their own hands is their best chance of survival.

Now, in which country would these civilians and patrol officers have a better chance of survival?

English police officers, while brave, would not stand a chance without firearms, and they have little hope of citizens being able to step in to offer credible assistance with their butter knives. Citizen and officer alike would be nearly powerless. They are reduced to waiting until the terrorists run out of ammunition, which isn't exactly a plan I'd endorse.

American citizens, on the other hand, could potentially help their police, or at the very least might be able to offer up some defense of their own lives. The Second Amendment was designed to help the American people defend themselves against tyranny.

If there is indeed another terrorist attack in England, I wouldn't be very surprised to see the British people push for a similar right to self-defense.