H/T Bearing Arms.

I say he needs to get more than twenty five years a life sentence sounds about right.

The San Bernardino terrorist attack in 2016 was an awful thing. It, too, led to a discussion about banning the AR-15. However, the fact that the terrorists didn’t purchase their own guns in the attack may have helped mitigate the outrage just a bit.

Now, the man who provided the weapons is looking down the barrel of 25 years in prison for his role in the act.

Authorities say a man who bought the weapons used by terrorists to kill 14 people in a 2015 attack in San Bernardino, California, should get 25 years in federal prison.

The government recommended the sentence Monday for Enrique Marquez Jr.

Marquez pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and to lying about two rifles he obtained for Syed Farook several years before the attack.

It seems Marquez was originally part of the planning of the attack before turning away from his more radical friend. He reportedly never tried to get the guns back from the terrorists.

Let’s be clear, he failed as a human being at pretty much every level imaginable.

Even if he had given up his radical thoughts, he knew what was being planned and failed to notify the authorities. That alone should make him a disgusting piece of filth, in my opinion.

The fact that he also provided the weapons that were to be used and didn’t even make an attempt to get them back? That just ramps it up.

The fact that he’s only looking at 25 years is what bothers me. I suspect he pled guilty to avoid some of the worst possible sentences out there. I don’t blame prosecutors for going that route, either. It saves the taxpayers the expense of a trial. I get that.

I have no tolerance for terrorists, regardless of their ideological stripe. It’s a pathetic way to try and affect any kind of change. People who provide support for terrorists are in the same category. I say their punishment needs to be sufficient to convince others that providing support to such people isn’t a good life choice.

Some might argue that 25 years is sufficient to do that. I disagree. After all, how many people get 25-year sentences for crimes that happen all the blasted time? This is a potential sentence for everything from murder to kidnapping and a lot of other crimes. Twenty-five years doesn’t dissuade nearly enough people.

Further, it’s important to understand that this is merely the government’s suggestion of a sentence. The judge could go either way with his or her decision. There’s no guarantee he’ll even see 25 years behind bars.

I’m sorry, but support for terrorism, especially abusing our Second Amendment as a means of supporting terrorists, is something we shouldn’t play with.

Unfortunately for me, it’s not my call to make. Again, I don’t blame the government for seeking a plea deal. What bothers me is that the stakes for being guilty of such a crime are so low.

What do you think? Do people who knowingly provide guns to those planning these kinds of attacks deserve more than a 25-year prison stint?

Advertisements