After a few days of shrugging, the MSM and it's puppet masters have "discovered" that the villains in question were in fact radicalized, plainly apparent from an old Facebook post. Wasn't this precisely the sort of intelligence that the NSA was supposed to specialize in using to thwart terrorism?
Lest we forget, California boasts some very strict gun control, second only to the state of New York. The rifles used in this incident were quite illegal in their configuration. One can speculate endlessly on how these rifles were obtained. Old inventory from Eric Holder's Fast and Furious campaign? The Mexican Drug cartels, who transformed San Bernardino county into the (former) meth capital of the United States? A short trip across the border? Keep in mind, all the MSM has dared to say on the weaponry in question is that they were purchased legally. They haven't said by whom, or when. "Legally transferred from a friend" is the extent of the detail. If true, this wasn't in California. All private party transfers must be handled by an FFL licensee in the state, unless transferred between immediate family members. This either didn't happen in California, or whoever drafted this narrative is counting on public ignorance of California gun laws. If this did not happen in California, most states require a Record of Sale, even for private party transfers.
It may be worth noting that Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina may have helped to accidentally let slip a bit of truth, in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe:
“If you listen to your reporter earlier, what he said is the ATF believes that someone purchased this gun on behalf of the police department and somehow that gun ended up in the hands of this guy, so it actually does not sound at all like this man purchased a firearm."
What of the third shooter, called out by multiple witnesses - yet written off by the powers that be? One such witness described a white suspect (How this was determined I couldn't guess, weren't they clothed in Military fatigues head to toe?) in an interview on CNN. Politically correct narrative, or is there in fact a third person that got away?
The great parroted question now is "How do you prevent this?". The usual suspects have been lined up for broadcast. Old National security advisors, talking heads, and apologists for the state. At best they talk in circles - perhaps concerned that if they talk too much a little boy from the crowd will stand and point out that the emperor has no clothes. At their worst they demand more of the same. Surveillance, spying, and war. They conveniently gloss over the fact that all three incentivize the activity they push ever so boldly against. I can't say that I feel safer today than I did on September 11th, 2001. I'd feel better if we stopped turning the Middle East into a hellscape, so today's five year old's don't turn into tomorrow's 20 somethings with a taste for revenge.
It's a recipe for disaster.
- A non-functioning surveillance apparatus, that spends more time spying on you and I than the enemy it was designed to cripple.
- A call for more gun laws, which did nothing to prevent this and will only disarm those with no inclination to create tragedy. Further fueled by the potential that the firearm was intended for government hands (scary enough on it's own, I know), but ended up elsewhere. It's also foolish to avoid the topic of French gun control laws, which certainly didn't keep Paris safe.
- Perpetual warfare for the foreseeable future, and perpetual incentive for radicalization. Future "justification" for the Nuclear option.
Thus is the modus operandi of the decision makers, to the delight of the State, the military industrial complex, and those who would not let a good crisis go to waste. The deceased in San Bernardino are little more than another sacrifice to Leviathan and it's wicked pantheon of lesser gods, all of whom don't mind seeing us disarmed, vulnerable, and domesticated as cows to be slaughtered or milked.
Should it continue to have it's way, the rest of us are next. We're on our own.