Its next to impossible to account for 300 million of anything.. There is almost one gun for every man, woman and child in America. What this means is two fold. First, there's no way to either account for OR confiscate 300million guns. Second, no new gun controls will regulate the 300million guns already in possession of Americans so we can stop the "they're coming to take our guns away" bullshit. I'm sure they'll keep playing that lie in the flyover/Meth states where govt conspiracy is as common a belief as bigfoot and aliens.
But... this is Amerika and we have the constitutional right to kill each other as often as we can. I mean, without the 2nd amendment we'd be Canada. The land of the free and the home of gangs and guns....
I think if you crunched the numbers on gun violence, took out the suicides and gang violence, you'd find your chances of being a victim of this sort of thing are extremely low in the grand scheme. No one seems to care about all the people getting killed in Chicago, the gun control capital of the country every day. Why do you think that is? Personally I'd rather have the ability/chance to defend my family, myself and my property against the evil that exists in this world, and will continue to exist with or without guns. Other civilized nations also tend to have higher violent crime rates not involving guns.
The "they are coming for your guns" position doesn't literally mean they are coming to each person's house to take their guns. What it does mean is that unless all existing legally owned guns are grandfathered in and permitted to be legal, which isn't the goal of the gun control crowd, which is to eliminate the guns from people's possession, the legal gun owners would have two options if their previously legal arms are made illegal -- turn in their guns voluntarily or risk prosecution for possession of an illegal firearm if caught. The end result is exactly the same as "coming to take your guns" -- losing your weapons or facing criminal charges. I'm not sure how you are arguing otherwise other than the literal technicality of your statement. But if the government can't get control on the illegal guns they are not addressing the problem fully if the concern is to eliminate the existence of those guns in society, they are only removing guns from the possession of law abiding gun owners, primarily. That doesn't solve the problem or even address it.
You gotta give the Democrats and the leftwing media credit. A radical Muslim Fundamentalist commits a terrorist attack against a Gay nightclub and kills and wounds more than a hundred people and the lefties immediately blame guns. The lefties ignore the fact that the killer was Muslim Fundamentalist and even swore allegiance to ISIS and blame American Conservatives.
That "Radical Muslim Fundamentalist" was from New York and a American Citizen so lets not try to deflect this onto liberals or leftists. He wasn't a immigrant either lets just kill that nonsense now. This was another homegrown terrorist action and the only difference is that he's not a White Christian fundamentalist terrorist. Nice try though. Sell that to the good conservative Americans that live in flyover country since they'll believe anything that denigrates either the gov't or the left. I'd get my meds changed too while I was at it..
It's disingenuous to pretend that Isis and other radical Islamic terrorist groups who are actively recruiting people and encouraging these type of attacks are the same as some random white dude shooting up a church. We all know you understand the difference.
Unless the terrorist is committing their act of terrorism in the name of Christianity or Caucasianism it is an absolutely dishonest statement to argue about problems of white Christian terrorists. It would be the equivalent of claiming vegetarian terrorist if they didn't eat meat as if their menu preference was relevant to their motive for terrorism. The fact is Muslim terrorists commit their acts of terror on behalf of their religion; their religion isn't an irrelevant element to the act. Just because a person who commits a mass murder happens to be white and Christian doesn't make them white Christian terrorists. The description is only relevant when it applies to the motivation for the terrorism. When was the last white Christian terrorist act that you want to claim exists and is of equal social concern?
Since if a terrorist is Muslim, he's a Radical Muslim terrorists, I think if a terrorist is White and Christian, then indeed, they are White Christian Terrorists even though the media would never ever say that. Nichols and McVeigh were both executed a decade or so ago. Robert Dear and Dylan Roof both come to mind as recent examples. They may not have been shouting Jesus is Lord while committing mass murder but Roof actually went into a church before opening fire and he was a White Supremacist. Robert Dear was motivated by opposition to safe and legal abortions which is boilerplate Christian orthodoxy. Yep, they both meet the criteria of White Christian Terrorists unless you don't consider murdering blacks in a church or workers at an abortion clinic terrorist acts.
This random white dude was indoctrinated in White Supremacist ideology which makes him just as much a terrorist as a Muslim that's indoctrinated in Radical Islam. Stop giving a pass to homegrown terrorists because they're christian. That's disingenous.
cman - we have large, well funded organizations whose stated goal is a global caliphate and the destruction/death of the west. They are engaged in a new type of global asymmetrical warfare that includes but is certainly not limited to radicalizing people on the internet with the intent of executing these type of attacks. Typically when these type of attacks occur they are well planned and successful in killing larger numbers. In this particular instance we even had a radical muslim imam who preaches killing gays speaking at a mosque in Orlando weeks before the event. Can we at least admit that this is happening or do we need to pretend like it's just like the rest of them? I think pretending this problem doesn't exist is a very dangerous mindset. Surely this is different than other random mass shootings that aren't inspired by a global organization.
Trying to "get control" of 300 millions guns is like trying to exterminate every cockroach in America. Impossible. Unless the American people decide that having a gun isn't really necessary, there will always be guns in the possession of both law abiding citizens and outlaws. It may be possible to restrict legal access to guns but just like Trump's wall, work arounds will always be exploited. There are 300 million guns. That's a huge amount of guns not to mention the cash made from the production and support for all those guns. Too many guns + too much money= too late for serious gun control.
No one has said that Radical Muslim terrorists don't exist. No one is disputing there are Islamic entities bent on doing harm to America. This guy was a lone wolf and an American citizen. He's muslim so that makes him a Radical Muslim Terrorist but he was not a part of some ISIS terrorist sleeper cell. This guy had other issues with people he came into contact with daily. A lot like the San Bernadino shooters. He may have even been gay. Who knows. He's been described as a Radical Muslim Terrorist as if he was in Fallujah last month. He was from New York so since we're so intent to tagging Muslims, lets attempt to be a bit more descriptive like say: Radical New York Muslim Terrorist just to seperate from the average run of the mill suicide bomber.
No, Muslim terrorist inherently means that being Muslim is relevant to the act of terrorism they commit. Being a white Christian doesn't make someone a white Christian terrorist in the same way Muslim terrorist means. What else do we want to call Tim McVeigh? Ice cream terrorist because he liked ice cream? It's just as relevant. How about heterosexual terrorist? Again, it's as important to his act of terrorism as being white or Christian. Or go all the way and claim the Orlando shooter a bi-sexual terrorist since it seems he liked to go both ways. You can't just pick irrelevant aspects of someone's life and apply it to the terrorist description and argue it is relevant.
The fact that he's muslim doesn't make him a radical islamic terrorist. Did you miss the part where he was under investigation for being involved with and associating with these type of organizations in the past? The fact that he called 911 and stated exactly what his motivations were and pledged allegiance to isis and it's leader? I don't know how much more evidence we need. These type of attacks are exactly the type of thing ISIS is trying to inspire.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are fine people. I have no problem with them, and their right to practice whatever religion they choose. I also have no problem acknowledging that radical islamic terrorism is real and it's here. We should all probably come to terms with that. When we do, maybe we can have a more honest discussion on how to fight back.
