The lack of a job did NOT cause the Islamic terror attack in CA.
Poverty did NOT cause the Islamic terror attack in CA.
Drought did NOT cause the Islamic terror attack in CA.
Islamophobia did NOT cause the Islamic terror attack in CA.
A lack of “common sense” gun control laws did NOT cause the Islamic terror attack in CA.
Guns did NOT cause the Islamic terror attack in CA.
Christians did NOT cause the Islamic terror attack in CA.
An argument among co-workers did NOT cause the Islamic terror attack in CA.
Bullying or teasing a co-worker about his beard did NOT cause the Islamic terror attack in CA.
What did cause it?
Two (or more) people who adhered to a radical Islamic ideology, who hated infidels and believed that non-Muslims deserve death, and who hoped, by conducting this attack, to further their goal of establishing a new world-wide Caliphate in which everyone must submit to their warped religion. This is the face of radical Islam:
In a recent speech, Barack Obama suggested some ways to solve the problem of Islamic jihad (although he didn’t use those words):
- More bombing of selected targets in the Middle East, but no boots on the ground.
- More training and equipment for Muslims in Iraq and Syria because that’s worked so well in the past, when weapons supplied by us were turned against us by treacherous, now-well-trained “allies”.
- More cooperation with allies to share intelligence and more useless outreach to Muslims to “counter the vicious ideology” that too many Muslims support, but don’t admit to supporting–it being part of their religion to lie.
- Laws to prevent people on the “no fly list” from buying guns. (Terrorists in CA were not on that list; the late Ted Kennedy was. So, without due process, let’s infringe upon their constitutional rights.)
- “Make it harder” for people to buy “assault weapons”, even though the weapons used in CA were already illegal in CA and had been further illegally modified. In other words, “make it harder” for innocent Americans (non-terrorists) to exercise their Second Amendment rights, which are expressly not to be “infringed.” Would Obama suggest making it harder for everyone to vote because some individuals commit vote fraud?
- “Stronger screening” for people who come to America without a visa. Obama has since backed off that and said that what he meant to suggest was stronger screening for potential spouses who arrive on a fiance/fiancee visa. (Shutting the barn door after the horse got out.) No doubt those who advocate for illegal aliens, who came here without screening or visas, pointed out his error to him.
- Congress to vote for continued military action against “these terrorists.”
Let’s focus upon Obama’s gun control proposals. As pointed out above, the terrorists in CA used already-illegal weapons; they were not on the no-fly list; and, being already criminal terrorists, they wouldn’t have followed gun laws, anyway. Surely that conference room was already a “gun-free zone.”
But Obama’s argument is that Americans can be made “safer” (but not perfectly safe, of course) by making it harder for everyone to have weapons and sufficient ammunition to make the weapons effective.
Fewer guns makes everyone safer, because self-radicalized people are hard to identify and stop. Let’s go with that premise.
Obama’s premise is that the more guns there are around, the more likely it is that a crazy person (or a self-radicalized person holding “extremist” views) can act out and kill someone with a gun. Using his own logic, therefore, should Obama make it harder for people around him to have weapons, so he will be safer?
In the wake of the CA terror attack, and other incidents of “gun violence”, some law enforcement officials and even university presidents have advised Americans to arm themselves because the police cannot be there in time to save your life if a terrorist or otherwise crazed person intent on mass killing appears on the scene.
It’s been deduced that the CA terrorists left behind bombs (which fortunately failed to explode) specifically intended to maim or kill “first responders“ who arrived to tend to the victims of the mass shooting. One can deduce from this that in the future, first responders will have to be far more careful and, therefore, slower in their response, as they must first ensure that there are no explosives in place that will make the carnage even worse.
Isn’t it, therefore, only common sense for people to have guns with which to defend themselves, since the police will be there only after the carnage has already occurred?
Or are we all supposed to be sitting ducks for Islamic jihad?