EXCLUSIVEâ€“Ted Cruz Reacts to San Bernardino: Now, More Than Ever, Americans Must Be Armed

On December 3 Breitbart News spoke with Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 97% about the Democratsâ€™ attempts to use the San Bernardino attack as an impetus for gun control and his counter position that the attack actually shows why now, more than ever, the Second Amendment must be defended and the American people must be armed.

Unfortunately, the goal of both President Obama and Hillary Clinton, is to consistentlyâ€“at every turnâ€“to look to weaken the constitutional rights of American citizens. And in particular, to undermine our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You donâ€™t get rid of the bad guys by getting rid of our guns. You get rid of the bad guys by using our guns. And, rather than respond to radical Islam and terrorism with a commitment from the president to keep this nation safeâ€“to kill the terroristsâ€“instead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to even utter the words â€œradical Islamic terrorism.â€

At a time of growing threats to our safety and security from radical Islamic terrorists, the right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding American citizens has never been more vital.

Cruz then honed in on the centrality of the right to self-defense and how the Democrat-led push for gun control at a time like this is actually a Democrat-led push against the citizensâ€™ right to self-defend themselves in the growing threat of danger.

The gun control push illustrates the misguided priorities of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. They refuse to stand up and do what is necessary to defeat radical Islamic terrorism, to defeat ISIS, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead, they remain obsessed with disarming the American citizenry, of stripping us of our fundamental right to protect our homes .....(snip)

Aliska,

Your knowledge of tactics is lacking. You don't have to kill an active shooter to seriously reduce his effective kill rate.

The mere fact that one of their "victims" was shooting back at them would definitely upset their rampage.

And, even a slight hit would seriously disrupt their ability to fire accurately and rapidly.

"Sportsmanship" rules don't apply: shoot them from behind, below the belt -- wherever... The goal is to disrupt or stop their dominance and ability to kill without endangering themselves.

As you mentioned, taking advantage of their vulnerability while reloading makes excellent tactical sense...

I heard an interview of a guy from a nearby office building that heard the shots, grabbed his pistol, secured his building, then went outside to secure the outside perimeter. He saw people through the trees get into a dark SUV and then they were driving very slowly. He thought that was odd, and watched them, and tried to ID them but the windows had a dark tint and he couldn’t see them.

They then turned away from him and went out another exit from the lot. The reporter asked him why he didn’t shoot! Paraphrased “Well, they were driving odd, but I had no idea who they were or if they were involved. The last thing I wanted to do was get involved with killing someone innocent. I was mainly concerned with protecting my building with my co-workers and family inside. I did give the police a description of the SUV because they weren’t driving like they were trying to flee the area - it seemed odd.”

So - at least he was ready. But also, he did have some time to get in a safe position, etc. Of course others at the party, if armed, might have had a similar opportunity to run down from another floor, etc.

I read about that guy, didn't know that he had first protected people and secured another area. Made me upset that he didn't shoot out the tires though.

Even if he had just shot out tires, the police could have ruined him. All political crap. I can see if he shot one of them, I don't know what would have happened. Now what the h*** is going on with a third shooter? Another one in the car? Or misreporting?

I've been reading about the truckers' problems in Calais. And watching what I can on yt but am having problems with the hang ups and churning circle thingy. They truckers) can't be armed. The "invaders" aren't armed. Yet. A real mess. Going to end badly. I don't know what will happen when winter comes.

This is nothing the people of any country, grass roots, have asked for nor wanted. When I first got access to newsgroups in 97 or so, I read countless posts from people in UK complaining about so much immigration. They have no say in their country. We have no say. Both parties have allowed it and if the people complain, they are racist, Islamophobes, evil for commiting genocide on the native population (not Great Britain) but ask the Irish about them.

Now they are destroying every European country except possibly Hungary and Switzerland. The US well maybe I need to think about arming myself. I went out after dark (not afraid to but would avoid certain neighborhoods). Gas and KFC. Mostly one kind of people now in that direction. I'm nice to them if they don't look mean. But many have come in here and shoot stuff up. The other way is a huge Islamic center which is built like a fortress. I kid you not. Probably huge underground parking. Very safe for them.

And my own block, once a happy place. Mostly older couples or older single people now. Where have all the children gone? Next city over. Sad. Very sad. And that is NOTHING, maybe it isn't nothing. Creeping something. And there's no place to run to. We've got crappy condo lofts downtown, newest ones they want almost $500K, all for a view of railroad tracks, a bike path, four lane major hwy and the river.

If it's a calm place today, it won't be tomorrow because either through immigration or social engineering, they will force people there.

I'm thinking that shooter didn't make very much money for San Bernadino, a wife, kid, rent or house payment (one said one another said another), car (they rented that black thing). Total loss. I saw a picture of that guy lying in the street. Maybe couldn't see his head, just a slice in his abdomen and some blood in the street. They must have messed his wife up pretty bad.

And there's a lesson in that, too. All this gun talk. One person with semi-auto and pistols is no match for those militarized cops. Something else to think about. We're glad they took them out but did it take that much force to do it? Police cars were blocking everything, never mind the armored vehicles. Those came in kinda handy though.

But the crazy thing is no way of predicting where they will hit next. This one seems like a target close to home and convenient. In other cases, no telling. You expect a big city more on the coast.

And without much fanfare, the FBI has foiled a lot of plots. We should be appreciative of that. I would be more so if I didn't think I know what's coming . . . .to be continued.

I don't have to type with an iPhone and my thumb. Can you tell? And I can still type very fast but not worth a darn with most else.

Trump:(-)
Trump believes that the Democrats approach to confiscate all guns will leave criminals as the only ones with weapons, but believes Republicans need to be more flexible on reforms. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record. (The America We Deserve)

Rubio:(+)
Rubio voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment expanding background checks. (Senate.gov)

Huckabee:(+):
Huckabee said that the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it s about our freedom, and it s about our capacity to defend ourselves, and our property. (YouTube)

Santorum:(-):
Santorum has voted several times in favor of legislation that would expand gun control efforts by mandating background checks on private firearms sales. This measure would have required a federal gun registry to ensure effective enforcement. (Senate.gov)

Fiorina:( ):
Fiorina has argued that people on the no-fly list should not have their Second Amendment rights terminated, but rather should be adjudicated by a court: â€¦The no-fly list has been unfortunately way too large. And I know people who have been on it, who have been stopped. And if we permit anyone who is on that no-fly list to have their 2nd Amendment rights taken away from them, that's a terrible problem. (Los Angeles Times)

Clinton, Sanders- why bother.

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.