By Tyler Pruett, Managing Editor
tyler@southerntorch.com
In the aftermath of every mass shooting that has occurred in recent years, Americans have found themselves embroiled in a bitter debate about our nation’s gun laws. Since President Obama’s reelection and the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, gun control advocates have quickly proposed “policies” in the immediate aftermath to help curtail these heinous acts. After last week’s deadly shooting in San Bernardino, California the President quickly took to the podium in the oval office and addressed the nation with the stated motive of reassuring the American people on his commitment to our national security. Instead of reassuring a nervous public, President Obama only reassured us that there would be no new strategy to combat ISIS and after every mass shooting, no matter what the motive, his rhetoric will only focus on the tools utilized by evil and not on combating the evil itself.
Immediately after last week’s terrorist attack, the President attempted to pass bills expanding background checks and barring individuals on the “no-fly list” from buying firearms, which were quickly defeated by a bipartisan vote. This immediate rejection by lawmakers was not because these measures are necessarily unreasonable, but because this agenda has been tried repeatedly, and repeatedly the American people recognize this as an attempt to use tragedy to gradually erode the Second Amendment.
Gun control advocates have been citing recent tragedies in California, Colorado, and France as examples of why tight regulations are needed. I personally find it odd that any of these shootings would prompt this debate. So-called “assault weapons” were used in each of these attacks, however each attack occurred in a location with tight regulations on firearms. In California, firearms are limited to a ten round magazine and many of the features common to modern military firearms, such as a flash suppressors, forward grips, and folding stocks are also unlawful. In Colorado, where a gunman stormed a Planned Parenthood clinic, has recently seen legislation passed establishing similar regulations. While in France, it has long since been unlawful to possess the types of weapons used in that attack several weeks ago. While difficult to determine their exact origin, the AK-47 variants displayed factory markings linking them to the Balkan Wars of the 90’s. Many such weapons remained in the hands of civilians in the states of the former Yugoslavia, and are now sold on the black market and moved easily through Europe’s open borders.
While the measures proposed by President Obama may not be unreasonable, neither would they prevented Tashfeen Malik or husband Sayed Farook from obtaining the weapons used in the attack. The rifles used were purchased by their neighbor, who passed the necessary background checks, bypassing any regulations. The couple was also not on any government watch list, despite having been radicalized years ago, and contacting known jihadist. Malik even took part in terrorist activity while in Pakistan before being cleared for a Visa and entry into the United States as Sayed’s fiance. These events are not examples of why more gun control is needed, but of their ineffectiveness. Although many Americans may not be aware of it, but this point was proven almost nineteen years ago. In February of 1997, Los Angeles Police officers found themselves in an intense gun battle with two bank robbers, both armed with assault weapons, which were not only outlawed in California, but also in a nationwide bill signed in 1994 and expiring in 2004. Thankfully the only casualties in what became known as the “North Hollywood Shootout” were the two criminals, but the amount of firepower wielded by the gunmen were not affected by restrictive gun laws.
While the President is insisting on increased background checks for firearm purchases, no proposals are being made to increase the screening process on our visa programs. Ongoing investigations this week even uncovered conversations on a dating website between the San Bernardino attackers discussing jihad over two years ago, before Malik entered the U.S. One of the previously unknown terrorist that took part in the Paris massacre was also identified earlier in the week as a French national who had traveled multiple times to Syria in order to fight for militant groups in the ongoing civil war. After each trip, he returned to France without hinderance from law enforcement. While the White House has spent time rightly criticizing Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigration as unconstitutional and failing to protect Americans, their own proposals attack another constitutional right, while failing to protect us and seeking to limit our ability to protect ourselves.
