Terrorist Attacks Expose Liberal Craziness

Terrorism brings out the worst in liberals. The blindingly obvious fact that jihadist Muslims are attacking us is seldom if ever acknowledged. Instead, the Left’s approach is all about distraction. This time, a gay bar was the site of the Islamic massacre. So everywhere we see signs of solidarity with the “LGBTQ community.” To cite one of hundreds of examples, my own governor, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, has directed that a major bridge over the Mississippi River be lit up with rainbow colors. The implicit suggestion on the left is that a terrorist murdering 50 people at a gay bar is but a logical extension of the reservations that many millions of Americans have about homosexuality. Mass murder can be an opportunity for political gain–in this case, to advance the normalization of homosexuality.

So, when Muslim terrorists murdered work colleagues in San Bernardino, was the reaction on the left all about solidarity with public employees? Not exactly. How about when Nidal Hasan murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood? Did the Left respond by lighting up buildings in red, white and blue? No. Liberals are opportunistic.

One common denominator is that liberals always see Islamic terror as an argument for more gun control. Terrorism, I think, is even worse than the usual arguments for more gun control. Has anyone ever heard of a terrorist who was foiled because he couldn’t get his hands on a gun? I don’t think so.

Pretty much all the Democrats called for more gun control in the wake of the Orlando Muslim massacre, although Hillary was a bit subdued since she is running for office. The most outrageous outburst came from the New York Daily News, which bizarrely blamed the National Rifle Association for Omar Mateen’s murders:

thanksnra1

The newspaper’s theory is that the NRA has prevented a ban on “assault rifles” from being re-enacted. Apart from the Constitution, there are a number of problems with this theory.

One, there is nothing unique about “assault rifles.” A terrorist, or any other mass murderer, can use lots of weapons, singly or in combination. For example, until Orlando the worst mass shooter in American history was Seung-Hui Cho, who murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech. He used hand guns. Best case, banning “assault rifles” would cause terrorists to use other weapons. Bear in mind that the second-biggest mass killer in American history, worse than Cho, used bombs. In 1927.

Two, we had an “assault weapons” ban for a number of years in the 1990s, and it did zero good. The homicide rate later dropped dramatically as firearms laws were liberalized.

Three, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a semiautomatic rifle, of which there are legions, that has one or two cosmetic features that people who don’t know anything about firearms consider scary. Do the Democrats really think they can, or should, ban all semiautomatic rifles from being manufactured or sold? It isn’t going to happen, and shouldn’t. A large majority of all firearms manufactured these days are semiautomatic.

Four, another ban on “assault rifles” would do nothing to keep effective firearms out of the hands of terrorists or other mass murderers. Many millions of semiautomatic rifles of many kinds are in circulation, world-wide. The only people who would be affected are law-abiding citizens.

Which brings us to a final point: one of the striking features of the Orlando attack is that no one on the scene, other than the Muslim terrorist, had a gun. There was, apparently, an armed guard on the premises, but his role has not been made clear by news reports. I still don’t understand how a night club with a guard allowed a terrorist to get in, carrying a rifle. But once Mateen entered the club, he faced no opposition, because under Florida law all bars are gun-free zones. Even carry permit holders can’t bring their firearms into a bar. So Omar had easy pickings. How can one man dominate 300? Only if he is the only one with a weapon.

The most obvious legislative change that should be made as a result of Mateen’s terrorist attack is that Florida should abandon its ban on guns in bars. If even five or 10 gay guys had pistols on their belts, as would have been the case in a number of jurisdictions, Mr. Mateen would have had quite a different experience. And I know several gay guys, plus a lesbian or two, who would have been fully capable of defending themselves, and hundreds more, if they had the opportunity under Florida law.

Liberals can’t resist trying to make political hay out of terrorist attacks, but their arguments are so bad that it only brings home the futility of their world view.

Responses