I don't understand why people saying that they want more gun control after something like this. If anybody wants to do something like this he will get a weapon, if it's legal or illegal.

Obama pulling out of Iraq resulted in ISIS taking control. Both the left and right agree on this.

Iraq was actually stable post-surge 2007 to Obama's 2011 withdrawal. Add Syria and Lybia to the mix as well. Say whatever you want about Obama, his foreign policy has been one big clusterfuck.

Obama has left the Middle East in even more of a mess than his predecessor.

Twatty-chops Nigel using this tragedy to ram down all our throats his political beliefs, I see... Stay classy, Beady’s Here Now...

ISIS didn't hit Orlando, a homophobic deranged american man with access to an assault rifle hit a gay bar. There's a huge difference. ISIS just heard the guy has afghan parents and thought "yeah, we did it. Terrorism. Be afraid."

Harder to commit atrocities like This without an automatic machine gun. Americans don't need machine guns or army issue assault rifles. That's ridiculous. I'm pro gun control. If you make it harder to obtain and it prevents some tragedy in the future it's worth it. There is no argument for a lax attitude for gun control. Helps no one.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But "a people" with a revolver in a night club would have killed 5 people, but the one with an automatic or even semi-automatic weapon would have killed 50. So yeah, gun control is necessary. But that doesn't really concern me, I will never and would never step foot into US of A. I say, give everyone a gun, let them kill each other until only sane people are left, for all I care.

I've thought a lot about gun control, and have come to the conclusion that is too late.

I am absolutely and positively anti-gun, but I've had a thought-

Imagine some awful, damaging drug was legal for years, then made illegal, who would be most affected by this? The good, honest, innocent people who aren't willing to commit crimes, would stop using the drug because, well, it's illegal now (forget about addiction etc in this example). Whereas the criminals, or those willing to do the drug anyway despite it being illegal, would KEEP using the drug, right?

Apply that thought process to guns- if a gun ban or similar is introduced, who will stop using guns? You guessed it, the innocent, honest, legal gun users, because they aren't willing to use them legally, i.e. for defence or whatever reason they claim. But those criminals or otherwise who are willing to break the law, the ones causing the violence and issues? They will continue to use guns, because they have already been in the country in great supply for too long, and they couldn't care less about breaking the law.

So what you are left with is the innocent people using guns for defence or legal uses having their weapons taken away, whereas the criminals and terrorists will keep theres and continue to cause damage.

So my point here - I suppose - is that it may not be a good idea to take guns away, because these people will always be able to get hold of guns because the US is already swimming in them, and continue to cause damage. The only difference would be that the innocent people would now be without their defense.

I'd like to repeat - I am completely anti-gun, but the issue here is that the US should never have allowed guns in the first place, as the system is now poisoned

Beady’s Here Now It was a mentally ill man who saw two men kissing in front of his kids. Anyone can do that mentally ill

It's not a gun issue.

We need to address it at a social-economic level. (And counter-terrorism as the case may be).

I also want to dispel a massive myth: The mentally ill are actually incredibly harmless. The mentally ill are the least likely to use violence.

Obama doesn't understand what labeling "Radical Islamic Terrorism" would accomplish. Here's the point: You can't solve a problem unless you know what you're trying to solve. #JVPresident