SIG SAUER - Never Settle

America Suffers A Terrible Terrorist Attack But We Will Prevail

In the early morning hours, an Islamic terrorist with possible ties to ISIS attacked a packed night club in Orlando, Florida.  He killed 50 and wounded another 53 before he could be stopped by law enforcement who took his life in a gun battle.  

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.  

Over the last several years our homeland has been attacked multiple times by militant Islamists.  As a nation, we must become vigilant and we must be prepared to protect ourselves and our loved ones.  

To no more victims of terrorism!

79 Responses to “America Suffers A Terrible Terrorist Attack But We Will Prevail”

  1. Grump says:

    And, to no more victims of senseless violence, period. May peace and the Constitution reign.

    • Jack Griffin says:

      Too bad the real casualties of this kinda thing are Amendments 1, 2 and 4.

      Can’t say what the guy is, can’t protect yourself and can’t be left alone.

      I hope this is a turning point for those things… but let’s be realistic.

      • Mick says:

        The 100+ living, breathing human beings who were shot would probably qualify as “real casualties” before any rhetorical points you’re trying to make.

        And I have not seen any hesitation to point out that the gunman was an Afghani Muslim who professed allegiance to ISIS.

        • Mick says:

          *US Citizen, ethnic Afghani Muslim

        • Mr.E.G. says:

          I kind of have to agree. The Constitution is important, but I think that was a poor choice of words when there are literal victims here.

          • Jack Griffin says:

            Consider me jaded, then. There will always be living, breathing victims of this kind of thing when our society’s response is the aforementioned.

            *insert that whole thing about the bad guys getting what they want*

            • Mr.E.G. says:

              It’s a fair point that you make. I’m not disagreeing with that.

            • Mick says:

              That’s such a shitty thing to say.

              “Oh well, 49 more corpses. But let’s talk about the REAL casualties, my opinion that my rights are being trampled on!”

              And what response are you talking about? How are your 1, 2 or 4 amendment rights being trampled on?

              • Mr.E.G. says:

                You’re both sort of right. It’s a really callous thing to refer to so-called “real casualties” when there are actual dead and wounded people. Poor choice of words. But, Mick, he’a got a fair point. Just think of how 9/11 paved the way for extraordinary rendition and all of the ills of the Patriot Act. It is somewhat expected for government to respond to tragedy by proposing new legislation, and it is often that the legislation proposed is of dubious constitutionality.

                • Mick says:

                  I guess i’m jaded in my own way.
                  If a sitting member of congress getting shot in the head and 20 murdered 6- and 7- year old kids in Newtown didn’t result in any gun control, what will 49 dead gays change? I think your guns are probably safe.

                  • Stephen says:

                    Obama did enact executive actions, the first of the NFA stuff was after newtown too

  2. Sierra5 says:

    Stop the feel good nonsense and remember that it’s the men and women in uniform that keep the wolves at bay.

    • Grump says:

      That we can just shoot the evil foreigners is feel good nonsense. The real wolves are politicians. Who do soldiers follow, a “commander” or the Constitution? Who will save us from ourselves? The military? Physical courage is cheap. Moral courage is in short supply all around, my friend. Fighting is one thing, but knowing who and when to fight is another.

      • Mr.E.G. says:

        Well said.

      • Sierra5 says:

        We know exactly who to fight, unfortunately our hands are constantly tied and we are not allowed to do so. Physical courage is cheap, yea sure, until it’s time to kick the door and then keyboard philosophers are so great to have around. So keep adding to the feel good nonsense, and the brave men and women in uniforms here and overseas will keep protecting you from those wolves and yourself.

        • Mr.E.G. says:

          You guys are both kind of right. We need to be careful who we pick fights with, because we have such a crappy track record at fighting ideological wars with foreign people. But, with respect to ISIS in particular, killing them seems like a pretty good solution to the problem.

    • And the armed citizens, you know, the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms, uninfringed (theoretically at least, last I checked the Bill of Rights).

  3. jkifer says:

    hear hear Sir… and to add (excusing my lack of fancy words)… fuck all of these people who consider their acts of violence against innocents memorable in some way, nothing is more cowardly and unmemorable than attacking those who are more weak than you. Come and fight us the warriors and sheepdogs…

  4. Engineer says:

    “The suicide bomber’s imagination leads him to believe in a brilliant act of heroism, when in fact he is simply blowing himself up pointlessly and taking other people’s lives.”

    • Mitchell Fuller says:

      I’ve come to believe the goal of many of these jihadis’ is not winning but redemption in their religious / political ideology for real or perceived strayings / failings from said ideology by these horrific acts. And this is the real danger and threat to innocent people everywhere.

      And this mass murderer in the name of Islam checked so many boxes in his killing spree:

      1. Killed Americans

      2. Majority gay and latino

      3. Security guard for contractor with DHS contracts

      4. FBI investigated twice

      5. Traveled to S A twice. The major sponsor of global terrorism and more insideously major financier of mosques / imams around the world

      6. Registered Democrat

      …….

    • It comes as quite a shock to the secularized Western mind to realize that these people are deadly serious about their religion. Deadly. Serious.

  5. Dellis says:

    This is a sad and very tragic happening and I would hope this does not become a political grab bag for this election year….oh wait, too late. Already calling for more gun control.

    Spent casings have yet to be counted and politicians are on the move!

    It’s been a tragic weekend in Florida, first that beautiful young singer shot while signing autographs and now this! Our hearts go out to you Floridians

  6. Evets Steve says:

    It took three hours before anyone shot back.

  7. Ed says:

    As an establishment that serves alcohol, the nightclub was a Florida state law mandated Gun Free Zone, which means that the law abiding patrons were unarmed. Of over 300 patrons, roughly a third were killed or wounded.

    The same for the location in Orlando where “Voice” singer Christina Grimmie was shot by a gunman the night before, only in that incident the singer’s brother tackled the gunman who then shot himself.

    Do you think it would be a good idea to change that Florida law (and others like it in other states) before this happens again?

    • SSD says:

      The law just keeps honest people honest but since people go to clubs to get drunk (and high), the alternative is drunk people with guns. That’s a change that will require some serious debate and consideration.

      • Mr.E.G. says:

        Exactly. There are some circumstances where gun free zones actually make a little bit of sense. Bars are one of them, in my opinion.

        • cimg says:

          I dont think GUNFREE zones make any sense, unless you enjoy the nanny state telling you what to do, and when to do it.

          • Iron Warrior says:

            I’m all about the second amendment, but I have to agree. If you are going to get drunk/high leave the firearms at home. Plus many states with loose firearms laws also prohibit possession while intoxicated. It’s not like it’s a wierd Florida thing.

            • Mr.E.G. says:

              Exactly. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like being told what to do any more than the rest of you. But not every law is some effrontery to the notion of liberty, and alcohol and guns don’t mix as matter of gun safety. I live in Texas and carry a gun with me everywhere that I go, and I typically don’t go to places where I can’t carry a gun. But if there was no law about bringing a gun to a bar, I still wouldn’t bring a gun to a bar, because I think it’s irresponsible to mix alcohol and firearms.

              • Mr.E.G. says:

                That came out wrong. It made it sound like I sometimes take a gun into places I’m not supposed to. I don’t. What I meant is that I typically don’t go to places I can’t take my gun. When I have to go to such a place, I don’t take my gun. When our firm is trying a case, for instance, the gun stays. I just wanted to clarify, lest what I said be taken the wrong way.

                • Dellis says:

                  Guns first then drink…but not together. Notice alcohol is not served at shooting ranges?

                  The bad thing is that a bar is not a place for guns, tempers flare too much BUT the bad guys know that which is why that bar was chosen over say, a gun ahow or a shooting range.

  8. Philip says:

    First and foremost: thoughts, prayers and deepest sympathies to those affected by this tragedy.

    Besides the senseless loss of human life, what disgusts me about this entire incident are the politicians and their crusade against an inanimate object. They wasted no time reviving their foot-stomping for gun control; partnering with mass media to deliver manufactured, knee-jerk anti-gun statements and tweets full of buzzwords before victims were even removed from the scene.

    A gun is a tool, nothing more. It is neither the cause nor the motivation behind this (or any other) violent act. It is a person who pulls the trigger, and a hardened, angry heart that premeditates mass murder. And it was brave men and women carrying guns who stopped this nutbar’s rampage from getting any worse than it already had.

    The 2nd Amendment is our government’s official affirmation of the right to bear arms, not the government granting it as a privilege. Thus, it is non-negotiable and it is not the problem. Free men don’t ask permission to bear arms. Disarming everyone benefits no one. Except criminals.

    • 18Derp says:

      Nothin about this was “senseless”. That’s an overused term.

      Senseless implies random and without thought. This was neither.

  9. Fernando says:

    You forgot to mention it was a night club, full of those that some in this very forum are against.

    And thoughts and prayers don’t do shit.

    • Mr.E.G. says:

      I’m not sure what your point is. I’m not against gay people in the slightest. If you are implying that gay people typically embrace a political philosophy that I don’t embrace, that’s maybe a little true, but I don’t want people with whom I disagree philosophically to be murdered. This is a horrible tragedy.

      • Fernando says:

        Then the comment doesn’t apply to you, I don’t see what your point is either. My point is that there’s a level of whitewashing when you state that this was ‘a nightclub’. It was a gay bar, they were celebrating Latino culture that night and the headliners were transgender individuals. If recent events are something to go by, there are plenty of people against those 3 things.

        • Morris says:

          Being against social/political movements that aim to destroy what we hold dear is not the same as being against the people on the other side of the discussion. It certainly doesn’t mean we want them murdered by an islamic POS.

        • Philip says:

          Bro, they were AMERICANS first and foremost. I don’t care what their cultural/sexual/gender identity was, they were fellow countrymen. This is still a free country and they have every right to live their life however they choose to, and I don’t begrudge them one bit for it.

          I may disagree with many of the talking points generated from within those movements, but I would never, ever, wish harm, ill will, or death upon them merely for holding those views. Nor would I impose my views on others, especially unsolicited or when they run counter to their own convictions and beliefs. That’s ignorant. I will settle for civilized discourse and respectful disagreement over violence any damned day of the week. I think most here would as well.

          I don’t think anyone here is whitewashing or marginalizing the tragedy… but you are certainly painting the commenters and users of this website with quite a broad brush in your assumptions that everyone hates the gays just because they lean right of center politically. That is not the case at all.

          • Mick says:

            Well said Phillip, I agree; that is a nice statement of solidarity.

            Many members of the LGBT community are angry. They’re regularly told, by multiple religious faiths, that who they love makes Jesus/Mohammed/Joseph Smith cry and they’re the cause for the downfall of America and they deserve diseases they get and they shouldn’t be allowed to get married or use the bathroom that they identify with because being LGBT is just code for being a pedophile.

            And that’s not coming from all conservatives, just the loudest, most ignorant, bigoted extreme wing which is what, like 5% or less?
            But after hearing all that shouting and yelling, it’s easy to forget that the other 95% either don’t care or if they do care, they keep it to themselves. They think that 5% represents all conservatives. And it’s easy to get fooled by that sometimes b/c the 5% will tell you they represent all conservatives.

            And it cuts both ways… so when Morris says soemthing about “destroying what we hold dear” is it possible that he’s responding the most extreme crazy 5% of the left?

            Don’t have any answers or wisdom here, just disheartened about how easy it is for two sides to talk past each other, and it gets worse when something so awful and bloody like this happens…

          • Fernando says:

            Everyone? Sorry but go read my comment again. It says ‘some are against them”.

            That is factual. It doesn’t assume most, or all. It doesn’t assume that ‘against them’ is the same as ‘wanting them dead’.

            What is also factual is that not mentioning the community they belonged to is whitewashing.

            • SSD says:

              Yeah, he targeted the GAY night club, but I didn’t talk about because I didn’t want commenters to obsess over it.

              Not mentioning the type of bar was not meant as a slight to your community. Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.

              • Sierra Charlie says:

                ‘Damned if I do, damned I’d I don’t.’ Seems to sum up your week Eric.

                I’m not an American but am abhorred all the same my recent events. I have no advice for you lot. My fear is that again, Americans will find no solutions, and tragedies of this kind will perpetuate.

                America has often stood up as a shining light for the best qualities humanity can strive for. Hopefully America again find this light, for the sake of yourselves and the rest of the world.

                Sincere commiserations.

                • Mitchell Fuller says:

                  The beauty and power of this country and 99.999999% of its people is we as many different peoples, religions, lifestyles can live together as one in relative peace and harmony.

                  pluribus unum

                  • Sierra Charlie says:

                    With all due respect, while E pluribus unum is a great and noble concept, it by no means uniquely American. It is a concept that far predates even the very notion of your United States. Furthermore, any Western democracy can make an identical claim.

                    The rights of the individual and the limits to the power of the State enshrined in your Constitution, however, is uniquely American. I can not think of a better, more beautiful doctrine that has come from the wit of man.

                    Every country I can think of has leant towards limiting the right of the individual to protect the masses. Can the U.S. accomplish both, and at what cost? That is the question many of us ask of great experiment that is your Republic.

                    If past behaviour is the best predictor of future actions, the future looks tragically bleak. That said, your people are nothing if not innovative. Now is the time to innovate.

                    Sincere commiserations.

        • Patrick says:

          You do understand the fundamental difference between not agreeing with someone’s lifestyle, and murdering them, yes?

          • Fernando says:

            You do understand that is not the point I am trying to make, yes?

            • Mr.E.G. says:

              With all due respect, I’m not sure I understand your point. Can you clarify? Please and thank you.

        • Mr.E.G. says:

          I kind of see what you mean, Ferdando, but I think you’re reading a bit much into it. Maybe one day in the year 3035 after the World War 15, when a race of aliens finds only this site as a reference to the Orlando shooting, sure, I can see where they’d be confused that it was a gay nightclub. But I don’t think anyone in America in the year 2016 is going to not know that if this blog fails to mention it. No?

      • Mick says:

        I think the point is that it’s curious that the single defining characteristic behind the selection of target was not mentioned in the article.

        • SSD says:

          Yes, it was a gay club, but I don’t really care what the target was.

        • Iron Warrior says:

          I think SSD’s point was that he targeted Americans. Americans doing what is a base tenant of what we believe to freely express yourself.

          • Mr.E.G. says:

            Damn straight. If the God forsaken Westboro Baptist church, people I absolutely despise, were attacked by enemies of the state, I would still be outraged. While I am supportive of gay people and their rights to equal treatment under the law, I probably disagree with many gay people on other aspects of their political leanings. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t die to protect them of given the opportunity, and it sure the heck doesn’t mean that I would want to see something bad happen to them.

        • Fernando says:

          That is it. And if the target really didn’t matter then you shouldn’t have erased it from the statement.

          • Ed says:

            Argue much, for no reason??

          • SSD says:

            I didn’t erase anything. Like I said, I didn’t intend to marginalize the LBTG community. I figured you guys just wanted to be accepted as Americans.

            • Mitchell Fuller says:

              The key is Americans were attacked simply for being who they are and doing what they want to do and on a Saturday night / Sunday morning having the right to go out and have fun without being targeted by an adherent of IS murderer who hates Americans, gays, women, blacks, and possible latinos re event at the club. Not to mention, as a mainstream gay bar, heterosexuals.

              And we all have these rights because of generations of Americans who fought and died for them and defend them today. Here and abroad. Often under extreme conditions.

          • Mr.E.G. says:

            Serious question (not trying to be a jerk), but can you explain how you would want it to be stated, exactly? Do you find it disrespectful not to mention that the victims were gay?

            Again, that’s a serious question. I’m not implying anything, just trying to understand where you’re coming from.

    • Fernando has a point, after all, the guy in the nightclub was heard screaming, “Jesus is Lord!” before he started blasting away, and “God bless America!”

      Yup, that narrative will do.

    • Jian Hong says:

      I am not religious whatsoever and I find homosexuality to be disgusting. If that bothers you or anyone else here too bad because it is my right to have this belief. I got a serious problem with any group, which represent a minority of the population forcing their lifestyle and opinions down everyone else’s throat and bullying people that disagree with them. The LGBT movement is seemingly so vocal about Christian “homophobia” yet silent on the Muslims that actually want to kill them. It doesn’t help that they support ideologies and politicians that I am adamantly opposed to.

      Having said that, I know not all of them think and behave the same way. I don’t threaten violence and death towards them and as long as they keep to themselves I do the same. Just because someone merely disagrees with another ideologically doesn’t they wish death upon their opposition.

      • Mr.E.G. says:

        But isn’t the most likely explanation for why, as you say, the gay community focuses so much on Christian homophobia rather than Muslim homophobia a simple matter of exposure? I’m sure that that gay people living in Iran don’t spend a lot of time complaining about Christian homophobia. If they moved here, they’d face Christian homophobia.

        Your position is akin to someone saying, “Man, you Americans sure complain about gun control. Don’t you realize that in other countries citizens are imprisoned just for owning any kind of gun?” Uh, sure, but I live here, and just because something is super-duper unfair elsewhere doesn’t mean that I don’t get to complain when something is marginally unfair here.

        You see what I’m getting at?

      • Don Duffer says:

        Jian you are entitled to your belief but it’s not very informed and is pretty ignorant. Muslims weren’t the ones who made it illegal for the gay community to be married in the US and reap the same rewards as heterosexual couples… that was Christian homophobes.

        You can disagree with all of that… but you’d still be wrong.

        • Jester says:

          And Christians aren’t the ones executing homosexuals. Muslims are.

          You can disagree with that…but you’d still be wrong.

  10. JOE says:

    For your consideration, John Oliver from last night.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS8cm3kmyWs

  11. Stone11c says:

    People can act as shocked as they want in their perpetual fantasy world but until the islamic community starts outing their own radicals this garbage will never end. Of course more gun control will solve “everything”…

  12. Don Duffer says:

    It seems to be glossed over that the main dialogue of “gun control” in the media in this situation is to prevent those on the FBI Watch List and the No Fly list (such as this case) to be barred from purchasing firearms… I’m confused why anyone would not want that to be a law.

    • SSD says:

      The terrorist was not in the No-Fly List.

      • Don Duffer says:

        Right, put the parenthesis in the wrong spot my bad. The law would cover No Fly as well is what I meant.

        • 18Derp says:

          Wtf?

          You know who else had secret lists that the government kept and you had no due process to remove yourself from?

          Are you serious you don’t see a problem with that? … wow.

          • Don Duffer says:

            Wouldn’t be that hard to put limitations of power on it… there’s a very very easy middle ground to reach there. And what do you plan on doing that you fear you’re going to be put on a watch list for the rest of your life?