Last nigh,t after the identities of the two San Bernardino killers was revealed, I switched back and forth among Fox News, CNN and MSNBC to see how they were speculating about the motive. Only Fox gave proper coverage to the idea that this might be an act of terror. CNN and MSNBC were clinging to the possibility (hope) that it was an act of angry retaliation for some slight that Syed Farook might have suffered at an office party he was attending. In other words, an act of (gasp) workplace violence, an idea long discredited by anyone outside the Obama administration.
It may well be that there was an angry moment that caused Farook to leave the party, but so what? When you come back with your wife, Tashfeen Malik, both dressed up in combat gear with automatic weapons, extra rounds of ammo, IEDs, pipe bombs, and GoPro cameras attached to your clothing to record the event for posterity, and kill 14 people, is that a case of workplace violence? We know now that their apartment in Redlands was described by police as "an IED factory".
Clearly, these two were preparing for their act of jihad. It may be possible that an angry exchange at the party led Farook to decide that this would be the time and place, but if not then, it would have been later at another place. I would compare it to last month's attack at UC Merced.
We will still learn more about Farook in the coming days, but to attribute this to workplace violence is outrageous.
How can this be! Senator Barbara Boxer said: “Sensible gun laws work," “We’ve proven it in California.”
ReplyDeleteAs one can see, it is our dumb-ass leaders who are the problem. Barb needs some Depends and prune juice and sent on her way.
Squid
Well, here we go again, again. What more do we need to know to realize that Obama and his administration are in either a constant state of delusion/denial or one of dissimulation/deceit??
ReplyDeleteIt is painfully obvious that these folks were/are radical Muslim extremists, as are probably most/all of their families, associates, etc. Most people that I know do not keep thousands of rounds of ammo and a dozen or so pipe bombs, some equipped with a remote-controlled detonation device, in the remote event that they would be dissed at work, or to hunt deer with, or for home security.
However, ABC quotes Obama as saying , "It is possible that this was terrorist-related but we don’t know. And it’s also possible that this was workplace related." This while the New York Times has reported that his own FBI has uncovered evidence that Syed Farook, the dead (alleged) shooter, I believe, had been in touch with people with extremist Islamic views, both in the U.S. and abroad. And Farook went to Saudi Arabia last year. Etc., etc., etc.
ABC further quoted Obama “We’re going to have to, I think, search ourselves as a society to make sure that we can take basic steps that would make it make it harder, not impossible, but harder to individuals to get access to weapons,"
And so then again, again, as one example only, come the proposals for the old ban on so-called "assault rifles", which are nothing more nor less than ugly, semi-automatic (only) versions of real military weapons. Been there, done that. Back in the 90's we instituted a temporary ban on such weapons for a number of years. DOJ later issued a report that the ban had "no discernible effect" on gun violence.
What nonsense. In addition to doing something again which did not work in the first place (the classic example of insanity??), why would we put further restrictions on the 99-plus per cent of gun owners who somehow manage to use 99.5-plus of their firearms in a completely legal/responsible manner rather than on those who misuse them??
In fact, according to the FBI, we are approximately 1.5 times as likely to be killed by blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.), twice as likely to be killed by someone else's hands/feet, and four times as likely to be killed by knives or cutting instruments, than TO be killed by a rifle (or shotgun) of any sort, "assault" or otherwise. As an example only, should "assault rifles" account for half of all rifle homicides, the above odds would be twice what they are (3 times, 4 times, and 8 times, respectively).
Probably the scariest proposal is to add possible/suspected terrorists who appear on "no-fly" lists, etc., to the list of those who may not purchase/possess firearms. However, both TSA and DHS consider NRA members and other "right-wing gun nut Second Amendment supporters" as domestic terrorists. There you go.
I have been a gun shooter for over 65 years, a continuous gun owner for over 60 years, and yes, an NRA Life member since the 70's. I carried a sidearm professionally for 27 years, have nationwide CCW now, and am frequently armed. In all that time, Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile killed more people than any gun I have ever owned, or own now, with no injuries to myself or anyone else. I am a typical American gun owner.
One little piece of "for example" legislation I WOULD support would be to deny gun ownership/possession to aliens/non-citizens who are here legally on visas or whatever. There are certainly many others. As with immigration, however, simple stringent/effective enforcement of existing laws, coupled with appropriate sentencing, would go a long way toward solving most of the problem. You might be surprised at the outcome. I wouldn't be.
P.S.--meant to also say that with CAIR jumping in so quickly, just like the guilty dog barking first, you just know that they know what's up here.
ReplyDelete