Without taking away from the personal tragedies in Orlando, the bigger picture everyone will be thinking about is the extent to which Trump may benefit out of Islamic inspired terrorism (whether or not the killer appears - like in Sydney's Lindt cafe siege - to be a
generic violent nutter from way back, as well as an IS fanboy.)
While Trump fans will think he has already benefited (there is a line already popular with the gormless Right at Catallaxy that "Trump was right",) and there will probably be a hundred pieces of panicky commentary about this is how America slides into becoming a Trumpian fascist nation, I think that in all likelihood, Trump will overreach; and when pressed for details, will not come up with a response that is legally, or even morally, credible. In fact, with
his statement, sensible people (I know: that's not Trump supporters) will already see overreach.
This is what those who are appalled with Trump need to do - demand he get specific with Constitutional responses that make sense. Not let him waffle on with his generic loudmouth demands and thought bubbles.
Update: when will someone ask
Trump about his position on this story from 2015? :
Senate Republicans rejected a bill that aims to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, on Thursday. The vote came a day after at
least 14 people were killed during the San Bernardino massacre in
California by two suspects, including a woman said to have pledged allegiance to ISIS.
Forty-five senators voted for the bill and 54 voted against it. One Democrat, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, crossed party lines.
The measure would have denied people on the terrorist watch list the ability to buy guns.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the
legislation, argued that former President George W. Bush initially
proposed the legislation in 2007, and the Obama administration also
supports it.
Update 2:
more on the general nuttiness of the killer. Still able to buy an assault rifle, though.