After the Orlando massacre at the Pulse Nightclub by ISIS supporter Omar Mateen, anti-gun Democrat party leaders staged a sit-in, shutting down the floor of Congress until they agreed to pass “common sense” assault weapon legislation. Although they did sit on the floor for a time, it wasn’t really that uncomfortable of a experience, considering there was fully catered food that was at their disposal.
Like children that never grew up, they sit on the floor and pound their hands, trying to get their way by disruption rather than logical discussion.
After the attack in Nice, France, that killed 84 people, including an American father and 11-yr old child, I would have expected to see Democrats rallying to ban these lethal high-capacity assault trucks. Mohamed Bouhlel went on a rampage during the Bastille celebration in Nice by driving his massive delivery truck through a crowd of people as they celebrated one of France’s most important holidays, reportedly yelling “Allah Akbar” as various points.
All of this mass slaughter at the hands of a radical behind the wheel of a large delivery truck. Given liberal politicians penchant for seeking to blame the tool, rather than the user of that tool, for mass carnage I am shocked to see no protests against these dangerous trucks.
Seeking to regulate the devices that are used in these massacres is equivalent to just treating the symptoms of cancer to make a patient feel better, but it still does not stop the malignant growth from killing its host.
Even if radical Islamic terrorists, or any criminals, did not have access to a firearm they could make explosive devices out of materials from any Home Depot or even use a large vehicle as Mohamed Bouhlel did in France. If someone is radicalized and has the determination to end peoples lives at the expense of their own, then they will always find a way to commit these atrocities.
So why aren’t liberals proposing tougher restrictions on trucks? Perhaps if you’re on the no-fly list, terror watch list or have committed a felony in the past, you are prohibited from driving large trucks? It seems like these vehicles of mass destruction can be used just as easily, if not easier, than an AR-15 to end the lives of mass amounts of civilians.
The reason you aren’t hearing an outcry about trucks, or anything besides firearms, is because it does not conform to the political agenda of gun control. The politicians cannot morph the argument into one that convinces the voters of a need for tougher gun control.
Also, keep in mind France has some of the strictest gun laws in the Western world, and both in the November theater attack and this terrorist incident, the perpetrators had procession of a firearm. That’s because bad people, terrorist and criminals do not obey the laws and can readily obtain firearms that are illegal in the same way a drug user would obtain narcotics from a dealer. It’s still illegal, yet there is an entire criminal underground dedicated to putting these items into the hands of criminals.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to, instead of enacting more gun control laws that only prohibit law abiding citizens from obtaining them, seek solutions to treat the cause of these attacks on civilians? If the cause of terrorist attacks is eliminated, then there will not longer be a risk to innocent life, even if civilians had access to Apache helicopters there would be no cause to murder others due to conflicting beliefs.
What seems to be the underlying theme to the most horrific terrorist attacks in the past year, one that they all have in common? Radical Islamic terrorism, specifically, those pledging allegiance to ISIS.
Allowing ISIS to grow to a level beyond control and spread radical Islam throughout refugee populations and fanatics across the globe is the root cause of these attacks. Allowing mass immigration from the Middle East and North African countries, which are dominated by Islam, is the vehicle in which these attacks are delivered to Western nations. Politicians refusing to identify the root cause of these attacks will continue to allow them to happen and accelerate.
With each radical Islamic terrorist act that takes place, Donald Trump’s temporary Muslim ban isn’t looking so crazy after all. Imagine being a part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, on the edge of their seats praying that there are no more large terrorist attacks before the November election. A prayer, that I highly doubt will be answered.
I have to wonder, why would the Obama administration and the liberal voters be against tougher vetting of refugees/immigrants and turning those away who do not meet stricter security protocols? Does that not make perfect sense to ensure the safety and security of our civilian population, or do the feelings of the left outweigh any common sense actions? How many more lives must be sacrificed in the name of diversity, inclusion and multiculturalism?
Even French PM, Manuel Vas, is quoted as saying after the attack in Nice, “We Must Learn to Live with the Terror, Like Israel.”
Perhaps the government should release standards of how many civilian lives are acceptable to sacrifice in order to bring in more refugees.
Prior to the war in Syria and resulting mass migration to Europe, France had no refugee tent cities, Sharia law governed sections of their cities classified as “no go zones” for law enforcement or mass terrorist attacks by radicals yelling, “Allah Akbar.” The government of France, or any other Western nation, that does not identify and take action against the root cause of these violent attacks will only see more chaos and death for the sack of their multiculturalism experiment.
Want to help President Trump fight back against the biased press? Become a contributor and submit your content.