A new Logic - A new Normal - Terrorism Domestic or Foreign

Terrorism Domestic or Foreign = A new Normal

 

Our history of experiencing mass shootings from Islamic terrorism is still new, however, not rare as there is a record being established and breaking down the difference between domestic terrorism and Islamic terrorism in America.

 

In the meantime, America struggles with gun control and hype that semi-automatic weapons should be bans. This propaganda or hysteria is mainly based on those two San Bernardino Islamic terrorists armed with “assault weapons” and outfitted with extra-capacity magazines which were bought in California, a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

 

We cannot forget the terror act Army Major Nidal Hasan who attacked fellow officers and enlisted men in a massacre on Fort Hood military grounds. We cannot forget the two Muslim refugees who attacked the participants in the Boston Marathon and we cannot forget the Muslim shootings on the Chattanooga naval bases and other individually carried out attacks on persons by those radicalized or influenced by Islam in our country.

 

Comparing such attacks has the nation vigilant for more acts while at the same time, worried that there may be more mass shootings carried out by Islamic terrorists within the borders of our country.

 

Rejecting the fact that if a shooter, a murderer or a terrorist want to get their hands on a semi-auto type of weapon to kill, they will have no problem doing so if they have the money to buy one either legally or illegally. Historically, the black market thrives on prohibition and bans of alcohol, marijuana, medicines and now guns. Tougher gun laws are not the answer.

 

Blaming Congress is not the answer either as they refuse to give in to political pressures to restrict gun-ownership based on the no-fly list which may be embellished randomly and arbitrarily to restrict gun ownership to those who are not terrorists, mentally disabled or convicted of domestic violence related type of crimes. It could in fact be expanded by adding veterans to this list who have taken an oath to protect our nation against domestic or foreign threats.

 

In our world, tragedies such as mass shootings, there usually is a call for many Americans to buy more guns for self-defense or protection against such acts and other crimes. This has been the nature of the beast for decades and is not going to change no matter what Washington DC writes in their gun laws.

The sadness is the tragic death of our children who are defenseless and vulnerable in free-gun zones designed to keep guns out but when an armed intruder steps on these grounds, there is little defense and survival becomes futile when faced with an armed person.

 

The San Bernardino attack may mark the inflection point where the nation’s response on guns go head to head. Terrorists are, it turns out, just as able to buy and use assault weapons as other shooters who live in our country. This would mean regulating gun sales to try to avoid repetition and that regulation would logically target all purchasers, not just those on the spotty and incomplete no-fly list. It is my opinion that such an action is unconstitutional.

 

Modifying or eliminating the Second Amendment would bring in the National Rifle Association which as a lobby group, shows no inclination to soften its stance on assault weapons since the term assault weapon is vague and unenforceable unless one bans all kinds of weapons that are not single action, single shot designed or factory-made. The cure is not the type of weapons made or sold, but the manner such weapons are delivered and who buys them.

 

Given the political economy of the gun-rights movement, it seems unlikely that even after the tragic San Bernardino attack, this would not give gun reformers any further support or leverage as it appears they failed to achieve their goals even after Newtown Sandy Hook massacre.

 

This leaves America with three alternatives: none acceptable to all and many acceptable to some. Applying the current trend of mass shootings in America, the availability of guns by shooters, we can discourage rapid fire weapons as a choice but not legally prevent the purchase of such a firearm.

 

We can strengthen the means to purchase such weapons e.g. background checks, waiting periods, create a gun owner registration list etc. but nothing can be done to acquire them in the long run. This kind of legislation serves no purpose other an allowing the guns to be accessible to those who are already criminally minded and radical in their mindset which includes domestic and foreign individuals or groups.

 

The confiscation of guns is another alternative but unlike to be successful and viewed as a tyrannical act of war against the people of America. It would in fact, inspire, invoke and incite the American people into a civil war with horrible results.

 

The other alternative is to do what America has done in cases where death is caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol, fatal wounds inflicted by knife or blunt trauma wounds and deaths related to serious illness, cancers, auto or aircraft accidents or industrial mishaps. We could add Mother Nature’s wrath of tornadoes and hurricanes, floods and fires to the list. We, as a nation, could consider these kinds of deaths as normal and move on with our lives.

 

This would bring our nation into an assimilation process familiar in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Israel and many more foreign countries who live with the fear of domestic and foreign Islamic terror attacks as well as their own domestic terror threats.

 

The major difference is that most of these countries have unarmed their citizens and leave them for prey as the police or militia responds to these attacks after the fact. We, as a people of this country would be a little less safe than before but still well ahead of the curve to defend ourselves when we possess a defensive weapon of some kind to protect family and lives.

 

Of course, we have no defense against bomb makers or explosive devices created to take life and limb but to my knowledge the only way to reduce threat to such an attack is to have a bomb sniffing dog in every house or property. Surely an impractical alternative to consider.

 

The bottom line is gun laws will not reduce deaths related to firearms used to kill people, either in singular form or mass shootings. People will kill – our job is to avoid their opportunities to such acts and prevent and intervene their actions.

 

Imminent dangers are exponentially created in gun-free zones where the victims are easy unarmed targets. Welcome to the new normal, where mass shootings and terrorist attacks aren’t so different after all from the gang killings or other sporadic violence created by gun-toting persons.