Prayer-shaming and gun control won't prevent terrorism

You know that Christians are responsible for the latest slaughter in San Bernadino, right, mes amis? One of those caught up in the horror, one Terry Pattit, who did not know the status of his daughter, texted, "Pray for us. I am locked in an office."
As could be predicted, the cognoscenti went ape-shit.
As ever, we have the moral equivocating that the Left is so famous for. It may always be Muslims who attack, but it's really down to those that follow religion. Not Islam, you see, because Islam is about peace, so it's not really a religion. But these terrorists get a little too attached to this God guy—they call him "Allah," but we can't mention that. And their obsession with God is the same as that of Christians, so therefore, a victim of a terrorist attack can't say "pray for me" or "pray for my family". That makes them as bad as the terrorists. Still with me?
When politicians like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham or Paul Ryan refer to keeping the victims "in their prayers," they're displaying the same kind of commitment to this God fallacy that the terrorists believed in.
Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik shot 14 people dead and severely injured 21 at the California city's County Department of Environmental Health at the Inland Regional Center. They were supporters of the non-Islamic Islamic State. We know that IS isn't Islamic because our "Constitutional law professor" president Barry Hussein tells us so.
It's apparently OK for ISIS al-Bayan Radio to say of them, "We pray to God to accept them as martyrs." But when victims or politicians speak of "praying to God," it's cause for deep, soul-searching concern.
In a commentary for Slate, Ruth Graham asserts that Christian expressions of sadness and concern are useless and meaningless platitudes. She argues that "thoughts and prayers" is an empty statement, that the New York Daily News is right when it declares, on its front page, "God Isn't Fixing This". Because, according to her, one-fourth of the nation is agnostic or athiest—and can we agree right now that 25 percent doesn't constitute a majority?—then we have no right to express scary religiosity and offer references to God. According to the media, the White House and the rest of the far Left, the only way to stop these attacks is to halt any references to God.
And, alas, gun control. The New York Times has published its first front-page editorial since 1920, entitled "End the Gun Epidemic in America." The mush-heads of the NYT write that it's a disgrace that citizens can own "weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection." Yet, how many guns are featured in your average Hollywood thriller, whose stars eventually remove all doubt as to their suitability for any other job by crying, "We need more gun control in this country!" God forbid we stop the "macho vigilantism" all over the place in films, rap music and video games like Grand Theft Auto, but I don't expect the cowards who comprise the New York Times to opine on this anytime soon or to even make the connection.
And ... insurrection? Insurrection? Insurrection by whom? IS sympathizers shoot up a Christmas party and The New York Times apparently thinks that it's straight white men, all gung-ho on the Constitution and embracing their usual heteronormative, transgressive microaggressions, that are the threat. Yet I know of absolutely no such examples of this "insurrection" that have ever transpired. Can't think of one.
It doesn't matter that criminals, evil-doers and, more than certainly, terrorists will always get their hands on weapons that put holes in people regardless of whether guns are legal to purchase or not. It makes people "feel good" to stand up and be counted as opponents of these scary machines, which, as we all know, kill people on their own. They just ... kill. We can't explain it, we just gotta get rid of the damn things.
Gun-free zones, which leave people who follow the law vulnerable to people who do not, work so brilliantly, don't you know. Worked wonders for gun-free Paris. And gun-free London, in 2005. And gun-free Madrid in 2003. And gun-free Mali and Beirut, recently. And, wowee, how gun-free zones worked brilliantly to halt the terror siege in the chocolate cafe in Sydney this time last year? That hostage situation could have been ended in the space of less than a minute if a regular Aussie Joe was packing. But, hey, we can't have regular citizens arming themselves, can we? No, we have to be sitting ducks. Makes life more interesting, n'est pas?
The Left ought to be grateful. A well-armed citizenry that knows its rights and uses them gives CNN, MSNBC, all the local news networks, the President and histrionic progressives everywhere the ability to grandstand and say how terror attacks are all our fault because we, not the criminals, won't hand in our equalizers. Honestly, what will the Left do if they are ever successful at banning guns? Who, then, will they blame when gun slaughters occur, which they absolutely will continue to do? What straw-man can they point the finger at? The banning of guns for the law-abiding will put us even more under their Stalinist control, but it won't stop gun-toting terrorists. Not even remotely. There is no evidence at all to suggest otherwise.
Yet, Obama speaks of IS being contained. He tells Americans to enjoy their Thanksgiving holiday and not to worry of terror attacks. These little pain-in-the-ass peons, always panicking about terror. (Apparently, expressing concerns equals panic in this stooge's mind.) So afraid of widows and orphans. Don't you realize that these invaders refugees are the same as the original Pilgrims? Have you heard that one?
"Nearly four centuries after the Mayflower set sail, the world is still full of pilgrims—men and women who want nothing more than the chance for a safer, better future for themselves and their families," the President opined in Thanksgiving address. "What makes America America is that we offer that chance."
Oh yes, we offer chances alright. Farook's co-workers embraced him, inviting him to cookouts and ballgames and holding a party when Malik gave birth to a baby. Farook was making $51,000 a year in his job at the Inland Regional Center. I fail to see how much more generous or accepting Americans could have been to him. But, you guessed it, somehow it's still our fault.
Also, remember, we don't know what his motivations for shooting up the employee Christmas party were. So let's just classify it as "workplace violence" while we spend month after month after month, dragging our heels and scratching our chins before declaring, "We still do not know and we may never know."
Farook and Malik had pipe bombs all over their garage. Islamist literature galore was found at their residence after the fact. But, alas, we will never know their motives.
A tangent: Isn't it amazing how one incident can completely wipe another off the radar? I speak of the shootings at the abortion clinic in Colorado. The Left finally got what it wanted in the form of the scumbag who shot three people while murmuring about the unborn. Doesn't matter that the shooter hadn't said one thing about abortion beforehand. But he killed a police officer, Garrett Swasey. A white police officer, which means he must have been racist and brutality-prone toward minorities. You'd think Black Lives Matter (Only When White People Are Involved) and other assorted progressives would be honoring the shooter.
Back to the subject at hand. Here's something for you to think about over "the holidays," dear reader. All we're hearing about is the incredible, oh-so-strict vetting process that the "Syrian refugees" are being subjected to before they are allowed to settle in the U.S. Malik went through the same alleged vetting. She got her K-1 (fiance) visa nonetheless. Still have faith in your government to protect you against the inchoate but nascent caliphate forming in the country?
Naturally, the response to that is, nothing to see, folks. Move along. Enjoy your malls (if you don't get blown up at one), your football games on your wide-screen TVs, your thick crust pizzas. And think about how you are responsible for any terror that has occurred, because it's global warming, the result of all your SUVs, that is fueling grievances in the Mideast, and the fact that you're rich because you've got jobs while the Muslim world is angry because of poverty.
Just don't pray. Whatever you do, don't pray. That is an expression of intolerance and it is no better than what the terrorists believe.