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.
No comments:
Post a Comment