An audio statement on the extremist group’s Al Bayan radio station said that “two soldiers of the caliphate” carried out last Sunday’s attack and promised the group would deliver more attacks in the future (see item below). The Islamic State did not provide details and it was unclear whether the group was opportunistically claiming the attack as its own.

When armed terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris over Muhammad cartoons on January 7, unarmed police officers were forced to flee for their lives. When armed men attacked people gathered in Garland, TX, on May 3 over Prophet Muhammad cartoons, armed police immediately shot them down — and the Daily Mail reported that the body of one was left lying the street while police searched for explosives.

A 60-year-old Garland Police traffic officer working after hours as security for the event and armed only with his issue service pistol (reportedly a Glock .45) shot and killed both jihadists, who were reportedly wearing body armor and carrying Kel-Tec and AK-74-style rifles, according to police. Essentially a citizen armed with a carry pistol. The heavily armed Garland SWAT police never fired a shot, as the terrorists didn’t get that close. There was a distinct trail of shell casings showing that the officer was moving forward towards the terrorists while shooting them.

The difference between Garland and Paris can be summed up in one word: guns. Load up.

“These guys showed up because they were offended by something protected by the First Amendment, and they were quickly introduced to the Second Amendment.” — Navy SEAL Rob O’Neal

But, the Garland facility prohibits weapons. It’s posted under the TX 30.06 provisions, as well as 46.03 as it’s owned by the Garland Independent School District. Good thing the officer was carrying anyway.

And now CNN, the LA Times and other lamestream media (the media!) want to criminalize speech critical of Islam. Free speech. How about we criminalize speech critical of our rights?