After the Obama Administration’s sponsorship of the Orlando terrorist attack and for service rendered to the enemy (ISIS) it is predictable to see where the discussion is going: to guns, not to the people who fire them; not to the people who buy them for the purpose of slaughter; not to the ideology that sanctions and promotes such slaughter; not to the anti-gay, anti-American, anti-liberty religion (violent, radical Islam ((for the dim-witted))) that has fostered two terrorist attacks within a year. No, the discussion goes intentionally toward a weapon that millions of Americans own, peacefully and legally.
Those wounded and murdered in the Orlando nightclub were unarmed. Had they been armed, one of them might have been able to stop the attack before significant loss of life. Had all of them been armed, there may not have been an attack at all, because shooters like Omar are looking for just such places where weapons are not going to be brought to bear to stop them. That is the common denominator to all of these mass shootings, it always takes place where guns are prohibited, yet it is the possession of such arms that is always called into question when such an attack takes place.
