Posted on 06/14/2016 5:02:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
A terrorist shot and killed 49 innocent Americans in Orlando Sunday morning. After the carnage, the political food fight started.
On the right, people fault Islamic extremism. When President Obama refuses to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" that gives conservatives a chance to pounce. I know -- I've been one of them. We argue that if politicians aren't willing to use the term Islamic extremism, then they can't defeat it. It's true: You have to know who your enemy is, before you can vanquish your enemy. But using the right words is not a game-changer.
Donald Trump drew water from that well in a statement Sunday. "President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam.' For that reason alone, he should step down," he said. "If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency."
For a guy who wrote "The Art of the Deal," Trump should know better than to set such a low bar. On Monday, Hillary Clinton uttered the words "radical Islamism." Of course. As secretary of state, Clinton was loath to use such language because she needed to build bridges with Muslim nations. As a presidential candidate, she has to speak plainly. So she did what she had to do.
Also on Monday, Trump again called for a temporary ban on immigration from Muslim nations that have exported terrorism. Problem: The Orlando shooter, like Trump, was born in New York. (His parents were immigrants, but then so was Trump's mother.) Simply by suggesting such a ban, Trump feeds the sense of unfair treatment that can spark radicalism in American Muslims.
Trump also called for better screening of refugees and immigrants, which would not be a bad thing, but again, better screening would not have prevented slaughter by an American. And it's hard to separate Trump's call for better screening from his call for a ban on Muslim immigration.
Democrats go after gun owners the way Trump targets Muslims. Clinton pronounced Monday as "not a day for politics." Then she called for a ban on "assault weapons." The Orlando shooter did use an AR-15 rifle, but, as gun owners have convinced me, a ban on one weapon only steers gun aficionados to weapons with similar firepower. Calls for such bans do not hinder criminals and do radicalize resourceful gun enthusiasts. Congratulations go to Clinton. She just sold thousands of AR-15s.
Clinton made another suggestion: "If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked." Problem: Such a law would not have prevented the Orlando shooter from purchasing guns. In 2013 and 2014 the FBI dropped investigations of Omar Mateen, who bought the weapons he used days before the shooting. Besides, if Congress were to pass such a law, civil rights organizations would get it tossed for violating due-process protections -- not to mention racial profiling.
Both sides proclaim: Why can't everyone be more like us? The world would be so much safer. Problem: That approach doesn't make the world safer.
(since we don't have a "like" option this just had to be said again)
So far as I know, no gun has ever walked itself down to a mosque to listen to sermons about how the most compassionate thing you can do for gays is to kill them all.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama armed terrorists in Libya and Syria. So much for ‘gun control’ and ‘background checks’.
we’ve had jihadis run their cars into pedestrians on sidealks. when do the background checks before buying a car begin?
Since guns don’t vote (yet), then it must be guns............................
It’s illegal to own explosives!......................
He has no intention of being "distracted" from his agenda items by domestic terrorist attacks from Islamists.
This is no different than hat John Kerry told the public as he ran for president in 2004. we're just gonna have to accept a certain nuisance level of terrorism in our lives.
GW Bush's 2 terms were preoccupied with a "war on terror" when Kerry's focus would've been on domestic issues (climate, healthcare, wage disparity, diversity...)
We didn’t have to kill every Nazi or Shinto or Klansman to stamp out the threat from those ideologies.
Too bad our war on Communism has been less successful and countless generations have had this problem with Islamists.
If the muslim were not at the scene of the attack, would the gun kill people all by itself?
This represents two problems. Trump addressed ONE of the two problems and did not address the other. Nor did he also did not address the problem of excessive highway fatalities or the resurgence of once controlled diseases or my neighbor's identity theft problem.
Just as scary or more so is those words stridently uttered by a “gay” person which seems to be the case in Orlando.
At one time, a very well known Japanese Admiral said that it would be insane to invade America, because there was a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Today, all the Mohammedans know that the grass has been burned away, by the BLM, overseen by the EPA, with the rifles seized by the ATF, and fingerprint tested by the FBI, sending the fingerprint results to the DHS and the seized rifles to the CIA, and all the names associated with those rifles, sent to Obama for inclusion on his enemies list, which is then sent to CAIR, in an act of appeasement.
Would the outpouring of grief be as great if it was NOT a gay night club that got shot up?
YES! But the MSM is really pushing the homo side of the killings.
BOMBS. Like the moslems did on Bali when they blew up 202 Australians at a night club.
Yes, it most definitely could. By not allowing terrorists into the country there would be less of an influence on homegrowns.
Who made a choice to kill? Was it a gun or a moslem?
Stay away from FB if you are getting upset. It's not worth your time and effort to see the libs on FB and twitter. They post garbage.
You are so right. I killed hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of fire ants last year and I did not shoot a single one of them. The same method can be used to kill humans in mass quantities. People simply cannot comprehend that if merely passing a law solved a problem we would not need to outlaw guns because the act of shooting people for no reason is already outlawed. Why don’t they suggest outlawing motor vehicles to stop hit and run killings? Oh, wait, I know, because guns have no other purpose than to kill people, one of the biggest lies the left ever told.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.