question of Ct shooting

[jazyd]

Lets suppose the shooter was not the mentally disturbed Adam L, but lets suppose it was a terrorist, maybe a muslim. Do any of you think we would be having this gun debate? Rather wouldn't they be pointing their fingers at the school dist, the state government and feds for not protecting their children.

[CitizenBBN]

Probably most would but I think the core anti-gun groups would still be trying, arguing that we need laws to keep terrorists from having these weapons. Feinstein was working up her report before F&F blew up to justify it based on guns going to Mexico. She's a "true believer" for this cause, would use anything to justify it.

but I think it would be a WAY harder sell and most would dismiss it. there would be questions about how he got the guns, and if he passed the checks there would be outrage that he got through the intelligence system. They'd try, but it would be far more lost in the issues of terrorism generally.

IMO what would be exposed is that nothing they're suggesting applies to this case. the guns weren't sold to him, it wasn't a private transaction that got around the background checks, no ammo was ordered on the internet, we're not even sure how many magazines he had or even if he used the rifle or used it exclusively. the gun registry stuff would be irrelevant of course as gun owners ARE registered in connecticut.

what would happen IMO is that people would be more questioning of whether the proposal fit the problem. they'd be more likely to see that the things they want to do aren't connected to anything that went wrong that led to Newtown.

Maybe not though. with the media as anti-gun as Obama and feinstein they'd probably do like now and fail to mention that we had a horrible tragedy and the solution is to raise the price of tea in China.

[KeithKSR]

The media likely would not report they were Muslim terrorists, Obama would see that report as being biased against Muslims so he would make sure that part was left out.