Terrorism vs. Gun Control

Just imagine that the Boston terrorists had killed three people and injured 250 others using guns that they had bought at gun shows, without background checks.

The Liberal Media and the Democrat party would be going nuts with indignation, demanding that surely we must confiscate all guns, halt gun manufacture and implement even stricter laws.

Yet the media have become strangely silent about the Boston bombing. They dropped the subject a week after it happened while Boston is not seething with anger like we have seen for months after the Newtown, Connecticut school killings. Why not?

It is because the Boston attack does not fit a template that would advance socialism. In fact one Liberal Media commentator said on the day after the bombing – before we knew who did it – that if the bombers were radical Muslims, that Obama’s Muslim-friendly policies would be set back.

And right after the attack we conservatives were slightly concerned that the bombers could have been conservative white tax protesters, although we were confident that they would not be.

Yet now that the media have been proven wrong we conservatives can’t make political hay about Obama’s laxity toward Islamic terrorism because the media will not discuss it. They are too busy praising Obama and blaming conservatives for everything from ‘global warming’ to crabgrass.

Meanwhile a sheriff in Florida set up a hotline to pre-emptively report people who might commit violence like Boston or Newtown or Virginia Tech. As an example, he suggested hypothetically, “We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him.”

Gee, would that include extremist Muslims like Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev? Who ranted repeatedly about how much he hated America? But was ignored because such rants are so common in Cambridge, Massachusetts where he lived? And would be ignored because you would not want to ‘profile’ an angry Muslim?

Or does that “guy down the street” only refer to conservative white anti-government males who say that they are overtaxed?

So why did the sheriff use this example when there are dozens of hypothetical reasons that a person might commit violence? Why didn’t he mention Muslims?

It is part of the Democrat strategy to suggest first and foremost that the real threat to America comes from conservatives and white people and lawful gun owners, and not crazy Bush-hating drug abusers like the Tucson shooter; not wacked-out teenagers directly influenced by Hollywood films like the Columbine killers; not someone well known as a maniac who easily could have been stopped like the Virginia Tech murderer; and not a terrorist known to FBI who wants to blow up innocent Americans in the name of Islam as the Boston bombers did.

Now what about the proposition that the terrorists might have used guns and not bombs…

The Democrat position after Newtown is that we now must develop a whole new and improved system of background checks on everyone who wants to buy a gun. And this sounds perfectly logical until you think about it.

But already we have myriad background checks and 20,000 gun control laws on the local, state and federal level. And often they fail because they simply are not applied properly, while these existing laws did not stop Columbine, Newtown or Aurora.

Under this system certain people are supposed to be on databases and banned from buying guns because they have committed crimes or they are crazy. In fact this check system worked in Newtown, but in a backhanded way.

The kid who killed all of those Connecticut schoolchildren – Adam Lanza, who was known to have deep mental problems –  tried to buy a gun and was stopped because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check.

And if anyone responsible knew about Lanza he would have been on the database and denied the gun if he went through the check. Thus the system worked, or would have worked if it had been applied properly.

Meanwhile Connecticut had one of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation before Newtown. Yet the attack still happened.

Why? Because Lanza’s idiotic “single mother” (the females praised to the heavens by the Democrats) gave him guns and showed him how to shoot even though he was insane. In other words, gun-control laws cannot account for every act of individual stupidity.

In the Columbine case the police knew that the killers had posted death threats on the internet and did not act on them. Meanwhile the Virginia Tech murderer was able to buy a gun legally. Because even after he had been analyzed by a psychologist and determined to be nuts, he was not put on a database of crazy people which would have prevented his gun purchase. Because the psychologist didn’t think he was crazy enough to go on the list. And virtually all of these psychologists are far-left liberal Democrats.

So there you go – liberals undermining the existing background check system as they scream for more and more new gun-control laws.

In fact one dealer refused to sell the VT killer a gun because he thought he was weird. The same type of suspicion happened at a gun club that the Aurora theater shooter tried to join.

This shows that people who sell guns and deal in guns and those of us who support the 2nd Amendment are very sensitive about gun ownership. We believe in severe punishment for those who misuse firearms. And we are urging much more vigilance about terrorists and about criminals in general.

Meanwhile most people under Democrat-party liberalism are the least sensitive. That is why illegal guns are used violently in the highest proportions by people in the most liberal precincts in America (in inner-city black America) and why crazy people often are not on databases.

And that is why we have had four terrorist attacks under Obama already – Boston, Little Rock, Fort Hood and the attempted Times Square bombing which failed only by luck that the bomb did not detonate.

In another case, a West Virginia criminal was not on a database that he should have been on. He bought a gun and killed a sheriff. That is another killing that could easily have been prevented. Instead it will be blamed on “the gun”.

Thus it is plain that we already have a check system in place and that we should be using to weed out bad people and crazy people who want to buy guns.

Yet who fails to use this system, and who fights this type of database every time and is often lax about it as in the Virginia Tech and the West Virginia case?

It is gun-control liberals who cite “privacy” concerns. They do everything in their power to prevent police even from establishing databases, for instance on people already in prison, like DNA databases.

This is part of the pattern in which liberals routinely have helped criminals in millions of cases, for instance with leftist judges freeing people with extensive criminal records, or ACLU lawyers seeking to exonerate criminals for any reason or on any technicality. The examples are endless over the last 50 years since the rise of 1960s socialism.

And then when a criminal commits a heinous act with a gun liberal lawyers run to defend him.

They do this for one principal reason: Because it is the position of the National Rifle Association and other 2nd Amendment supporters to forcefully and actively prosecute people who misuse firearms. And so liberals therefore take the opposite tack and defend those people as a matter of their principle.

The FBI even once had personally interviewed Boston terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev while US officials were warned about him by Russian intel agencies. Yet he waltzed into the marathon crowd on April 15 and detonated a bomb.

So the reason that background checks and existing databases and even personal interviews often fail is because you first need competent law enforcement officials who actually want to catch criminals. These officials were common years ago when America was more conservative.

But under Obama and the soft-on-crime Democrats many of these officials are no longer interested in enforcing the law. No, they are more interested in multiculturalism and political correctness, like the US Army officials who took no action against the Fort Hood killer because he was Islamic and they did not want to be seen as ‘profiling’ him. Thirteen people died as a result.

This is why the Boston case is quickly disappearing from the Liberal Media. But you just wait until the Democrats can exploit this event fully, like next April 15. Then you will see the one-year memorial services, the unrelated calls for gun control, the phony demand that Tea Partiers stop protesting taxes on April 15 out of respect for those killed in Boston, and the utter hypocrisy of the left.

But you will never see them talk about Islamic terrorism… or the failure of Obama to stop it.

(Please bookmark this website. And please click the Google button (g+1) at the top of this page and recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook, MySpace and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. Thank you, Nikitas)

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.