Now Is Not The Time For More Gun Control

To the chagrin of the media and other liberals, the “mass shooting” in San Bernardino, California last week was a terrorist attack. The media held back revealing the names of the two dead terrorist for four hours, hoping they could find any connection with right-wing, anti-abortion, Tea Party, NRA card carrying registered Republicans. No luck. Anyone with the slightest ability to analyze the facts surrounding the shooting would have concluded early on that this was no ordinary “mass shooting.” And, when the media finally revealed the names of the shooters as Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, liberals started howling because they knew this would reinforce in the minds of public that a quarter million Syrian refugees, many of whom are supportive or sympathetic to ISIS, shouldn’t be allowed to obtain refugee status in the U.S. for fear of ISIS infiltration and future terrorist attacks. Before the number of victims was known, or details about the shooters were released, upon hearing about the event, President Obama and Hillary Clinton, like Pavlov’s dog, immediately called for more gun control. The event in San Bernardino made it clear that restrictive gun laws in California had absolutely no effect in stopping this terrorist attack. California already has all the gun control measures in place the president has been advocating. The two handguns recovered were legally purchased by Farook. The two semi-automatic rifles they had were legally purchased, but by a friend of his. The two rifles were modified “to make them more powerful” according to a CBS news report. They were probably “more powerful” because Farook and Malik had many 30-round standard capacity magazines, which are, of course, unlawful in California but readily available in many other states. Farook and Malik duct taped three homemade pipe bombs and left them at the scene of the shooting; fortunately, they didn’t explode remotely as intended. Another dozen were found at their apartment. Neighbors saw suspicious activity by them and other Middle Eastern man, during all hours of the night, at Farook’s apartment but they didn’t report it to the authorities for fear of being accused of “racial profiling.” In light of this attack coming on the heels of the tragic events in Paris, this is not the time to address more restrictive gun control. Hillary Clinton suggests that the “Australian and U.K.” models of gun control should be explored. That translates into gun confiscation. Why would she and others consider disarming law abiding citizens when Muslim extremists are attacking our country? Liberals want to confiscate your guns and let in 250,000 Muslim Syrian refugees who cannot be properly screened. How can the U.S. conduct criminal background checks on citizens of a country it has no diplomatic relations with? ISIS has made it clear it intends to infiltrate the refugee population headed to the U.S. and Europe to conduct more jihad, but this doesn’t matter to the president, Hillary, or Bernie. The U.S. should take the fight to the enemy and conduct “shock and awe” style air campaigns in ISIS held territories and oil fields, and then send in badly needed ground troops to take out the survivors. The president’s pin prick approach at “containing” ISIS obviously is not working. What doesn’t the president, Hillary, Bernie, and John Kerry understand about the potential disaster that awaits us if we don’t act decisively, and soon? I don’t believe that ISIS has the capacity to conduct another 9/11 style attack. However, I predict that there will be several other similar attacks before the next election by a handful of individuals who were inspired by the Paris and San Bernardino attacks. Bringing Syrian refugees to this country just increases the chances my prediction will be realized. The sooner we take out ISIS, the sooner the refugees can return home.