It’s not a gun problem. It’s a terror problem.
(AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)
Just a reminder in case you’ve forgotten. The Tsarnaev brothers did not use “assault rifles” in the Boston Marathon attack in 2013. Of the six who died and approximately 280 who were wounded, none was struck by bullets from an AR-15 or an “assault rifle” or an “automatic weapon.”
A 9mm Ruger pistol did play a small role that day. The stars of the show, however, were bombs made from pressure cookers, the likes of which can be bought in any Target or Wal-Mart.
The death, injury and mayhem in Boston on that spring 2013 day did not come as a result of flawed policy regarding the availability of any particular model of gun. The NRA was not to blame. Neither was the Republican Party and neither were the millions of Americans who resist the Left’s reflexive tendency to advocate curbing the rights of law-abiding citizens to own weapons.
Terror watch lists and “no-fly” lists would not have stopped, and cannot now stop, a homicidal zealot from buying a pressure cooker. Nor can the most restrictive imaginable statutes or regulations keep said zealot from obtaining the materials necessary to turn an ordinary piece of kitchen cookware into a lethal weapon.
All of this to say that the horror in Orlando is not a gun control problem. It is a terror problem.
An Islamic terror problem, to be precise.
The common thread that runs through every attack from New York to Boston to Paris to Brussels to Orlando is not guns. The common thread — painfully obvious to all who are not willfully blind — is militant, radical Islam.
To stop the attacks, radical Islam must be defeated at its source. Something that no government anywhere in the world – particularly that of the world’s one remaining superpower – seems even remotely prepared to do.
“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. So what are you waiting for?”
2011 Al Qaeda recruitment video
Proving the point. The problem is an enemy that is motivated to kill.
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/if-were-going-to-monitor-a-group-of-people-we-should-start-with-white-male-gun-owners/
ARE YOU SERIOUS???? Because of all those white male gun owners that are running around all over the country and the world killing innocent people in the name of Allah? THOSE white male gun owners? Those Baptist and Presbyterian and Methodist and Episcopalian white male gun owners?
The Boston bombers were named Dzhokar and Tamerlan. The San Bernadino shooters were named Tashfeen and Syed. The Orlando shooter’s name was Omar. There isn’t a Bill or a Fred or a Rusty or a Cooter or a Bubba in the bunch.
Monitoring white male gun owners?
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
You dispute the facts your fellow Texan referenced?
I dispute the premise.
Mr. Gleiser, you are right on point!
We have the expertise, but lack the will of those in charge to do what is needed. No doubt we have those who could (ready and willing) do a mission of this magnitude.
The problem isn’t radical Islam. The problem, as it has been for centuries, is Islam. Eventually we will understand this distinction, but in the meantime a lot of good people will die.
If President Obama would focus on the problem–“radical Islamic terrorism”–and put forth the required “Herculean” effort to defeat it, such an effort would be rewarded by fast “drying up” any reason why young men, no matter how “rudderless,” would ever want to follow a failed ideology on its way to extinction.
But President Obama must define the problem and then have the will to defeat it. And to be sure, it isn’t about guns or firearms, but “radical Islamic terrorism.”
I think it is safe to say that when terrorist want to destroy something or someone, they do not NEED guns to do the job. Bombs seem to be their weapons of choice. After all, you can kill more people that way, destroy buildings, airplanes, and the list goes on!
Guns are NOT the problem and never have been. We have more than enough gun laws on the books, of which half need to be taken off because they are useless! The problem is in the heads of those who do not want an armed people as our forefathers intended!
That is SO correct….Ban muzzies, not muzzles…
I have to wonder if the avoidance of using the term radical Islamist terrorist could be correct….in that they are reacting within in their “normal” interactions with other cultures…that’s just the way they roll (heads) by their business as usual killings. I am not convinced there are any moderate muzzies….
It is very true that all Muslims are not terrorists, but, it does seem that the VAST majority of terrorists are Muslims. If B.O. would allow the Generals to fight this battle without all the PC restrictions, it could be over in a very short amount of time. Yes, there would be collateral damage to innocents, but, how many innocents have been terminated by Radical Islam? We have a long way to catch up. Now that John Kerry (Lurch) has virtually put a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iranian terrorists with B.O.’s infamous “nuclear deal”, the world has become much less safe.
We have the ability to stop all of this if B.O. would just get out of the way and let the Generals do their jobs! All we need now is another 4 to 8 years of B.O. tactics if Hitlary is elected…..God help us!
B.O. Stinks.
We have a liberal democrat problem in Washington. It’s not a gun problem in the US. There really wouldn’t be a terrorist problem here today if liberals would focus on reality long enough to recognize a problem. It’s not about guns or terrorists to them. It is about POWER and CONTROL over the American people. PERIOD. We have a totally corrupt judicial system, and this administration wouldn’t know a solution if it was served up to them for breakfast.