The Aftermath of the Orlando Massacre
By: Bill O'ReillyJune 13, 2016
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

There are two major situations the nation must deal with in the interest of your public safety -- keeping you and the people you care about safe from random violence.

First, the Islamic jihad.

Second, guns.

On the ISIS-jihad front, Congress must declare war on specific terror groups like ISIS, shifting the primary role of protection from law enforcement agencies to the military.

A declaration of war would allow the president much more leeway in neutralizing terror threats both within and outside the country.

Also, NATO nations would then have to step up the fight against the savages, bringing more power to the battlefield, which of course is everywhere.

This strategy is not a knock at American law enforcement agencies; they are doing excellent work.

But as we've learned in the Orlando case, the FBI had the terrorist Omar Mateen in its files.

But civil liberties being what they are, suspicions are not enough.  You cannot detain someone for long without proof of a crime.

In a war situation, investigators would have far more options in defining enemy threats and dealing with them.

It is troubling that the current commander-in-chief will not say the words “Islamic terror” to define the threatening enemy.

Again, today responding to mass murder carried out by an ISIS sympathizer, Barack Obama would not reference the specific threat from the Islamic jihad:

OBAMA: “As far as we can tell right now, this is certainly an example of the kind of homegrown extremism that all of us have been so concerned about for a very long time.”

So-called "homegrown extremism" is a problem that will never be solved.  There will always be violent loons like Timothy McVeigh and the Boston Marathon killers.

No power on Earth can extinguish that.

But organizations like ISIS and al Qaeda are a far different story.  They can be confronted and destroyed just as the Third Reich was during World War II.

By the way, Talking Points will say it again.  There is no difference between ISIS and the Nazis.

Hitler and his maniacal followers targeted homosexuals for extermination along with Jews and other groups.

The Orlando terrorist hated and targeted gays in conjunction with the ISIS philosophy.

President Obama does not seem to understand that you cannot contain evil, you most destroy it. 

His policies of retreat in the Middle East directly led to the rise of ISIS, a situation that has resulted in horrific mass murders in at least twenty countries, as well as the migration crisis in Europe.

At first, Mr. Obama tried to marginalize ISIS by calling it the J-V.  Then he outsourced the fight to the Kurds and other groups, foolishly stating that they could mitigate the threat.

Because the liberal American press has largely supported the retreat, Mr. Obama's continued failure to stop the jihad or even define the threat accurately is basically downplayed by the national media.

Summing up, America is under attack by Muslim fanatics.  Just because they don't use tanks and planes doesn't mean this isn't war.  It is.

Now on to guns.

President Obama is much more comfortable promoting anti-gun policy than he is discussing the jihad:

OBAMA: “We are also going to have to make sure that we think about the risks we are willing to take by being so lax in how we make very powerful firearms available to people in this country.  And this is something I've obviously talked about for a very long time.”

Mr. Obama is correct in asserting that Congress should debate which weaponry is acceptable under the Second Amendment.

Public safety demands that certain weapons not be allowed -- you can't sell a bazooka or hand grenades.

Congress has the power to outlaw specific weapons and did so in 1994 with certain kinds of rifles.  That ban has lapsed.

That debate is valid and necessary.

But when you hear a politician or pundit say that banning guns will stop mass murder, know that you are being deceived.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA and bad people will always be able to get them, period.

Also, self-protection is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that will never change.

All Americans have a right to own firearms.  Not necessarily to carry them, to own them.

States make carry laws depending on what their population wants.

Twenty years ago there was a mass murder in Tasmania, a part of Australia.  Thirty-five people shot dead by a maniac using a semi-automatic rifle.

Australia, with a population of 24 million, then banned automatic and semi-automatic rifles, as well as essentially banning handguns.

Caught with one illegally, you can get 14 years in prison.

Since 1996, gun murders have dropped 72% in Australia.

But here's the kicker.  Roughly during the same period of time, gun murders in the USA have dropped 30%, non-fatal shootings dropping 61%.

Why?  Not because of banning guns, but because of long prison terms for violent offenders, including drug gangsters.

That strategy is now being attacked by the left.

Summing up, the sane, constitutional gun policy might be this:

Certain kinds of deadly weapons should be banned for sale by congressional legislation.

All crimes committed with guns, including illegal gun sales, should be federalized and subject to strict mandatory prison terms.

But the right to own most firearms for protection should remain protected everywhere.

And the right to carry should be determined by individual states -- what works in Delaware may not work in Idaho.

America needs to punish the jihad and protect its citizens by finding realistic solutions to vexing problems

Crazed ideologues on both sides actually help the terror killers.

And so do weak leaders.

And that's the memo.