[rjaco31]

I can't tell if your post is sarcastic or not. If you cannot prevent terrorist acts on your soil, the solution is pretty obvious then, it's not to give weapons to everybody or to hire 20% of your population as cop, it's just to be sure that you're not giving reasons to anybody to come and bomb you.

That's the only realistic & cost-efficient approach given the threat model.

[msandford]

That's a long term solution and one I am in favor of. But what do you do in the interim, between the time that the US stops creating more terrorists through bad foreign policy and the time that everyone who is angry enough to want to kill Americans for revenge is either dead or doesn't care anymore?

Edit: I am not being sarcastic at all. It will be exceedingly difficult to get rid of all the guns in the US so suggesting disarmament is a non-starter here. That means that terrorists will be able to get their hands on guns if they desire. Which means that you need someone to counter them with something. The logical conclusion is another person (preferably many people) with guns also. And since the police ratio in the US is on the order of 0.1% that's not going to give you an adequate response time as we've seen from mass shootings.

The real question is "would the cure be worse than the disease?" and while I personally think the answer is "no" that doesn't make me right. And given how much the left hates guns, I suspect that we'll never actually find out, so don't worry.

[jakeogh]

"not giving reasons to anybody to come and bomb you"

Power needs to be attacked, otherwise it's protection racket wouldn't work.