By now we all know the tragic story. Last Sunday, American-born Omar Mateen walked into Pulse, a gay nightclub in central Orlando, and opened fire on the club-goers. In the end, he killed 49, and injured many more. Mateen declared his allegiance to ISIS over an open 911 line, in the heat of the attack. The vast majority of the victims were homosexuals, and many political figures as well as the LGBT community declared this a hate crime.

This was an upsetting tragedy involved for everybody. Above all else we need to pray for the families of the victims, and remember that overly politicizing this attack is disrespectful to both those who lost their lives last weekend, and those who have a difficult path ahead of them as they deal with the loss of their son or lover.

However, sometimes it is important to take step back and recognize that we as a country, in our time of unification following this mass attack, need to make sure this never happens again.

What did the candidates have to say? Of course they both heavily politicized the attacks. As per usual, Hillary blamed the attack on the easy availability of guns, and Trump blamed the admittance of Mateen's father to the country and the subsequent radicalization that led to the shooting. While both also sent out their condolences to those involved, it wasn't the classy way to handle the situation—but when are these two ever classy, anyway?

Many have argued that Mateen shouldn't have been able to purchase a gun in the first place, citing his placement on the watch list twice in the past, and the relative ease which it took for him to buy weapons only days prior to the incident. However, other factors at play make this argument difficult. While Mateen had been placed on the watch list twice, the FBI also twice decided to take him off, therefore allowing him to go about his life as a normal citizen. He was not on the watch list when this incident occurred. What, in hindsight, could we have done differently?

I wholeheartedly agree that stronger, more effective background checks be implemented in lieu of this tragedy. But these still will not get to the heart of the problem. If America had zero guns, radical Islam would still threaten law-abiding individuals. One destructive item would merely be replaced by another; consider the surprise public beheadings that months ago devastated Britain.

The question therefore remains: How do we effectively combat the spread of radical Islam to our shores? At the heart of it, radical Islamists despise everything the west stands for, be it our empowerment of women, our acceptance of gay rights, or even our emphasis on representative government. The LGBT community is at a crossroads right now, because it firsthand experienced what radical Islam thinks of them. Radical Islam not only believes that women should be made inferior under Sharia, it believes that gays should be put to death. And that's exactly what happened. Radical Islam put to death those who thought they were free to express their sexuality and enjoy themselves in a public place, well within the borders of a major metropolitan area in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The west and radical Islam are at war. And the gay community found themselves in the heat of a battle they previously had underestimated the reach of.

If radical Islam wins, the LGBT community will not be able to enjoy the freedoms that it experiences today. For the first time, many members are realizing the gravity of the situation. For the first time, members are questioning their strong attachment to the Democratic Party, which took a stand for their equality and rights in their time of need. But now, many are worried that the same party that propped them up will use them as a political football, to influence the passage of gun control laws and clamp regulations onto innocent Americans, without recognizing the depth of the real issue.

Donald Trump, in his response to the Orlando attacks, at least recognized the core issue behind the tragedy:

We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism - which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America safe again and great again for everyone.

Donald Trump is far from a perfect candidate, and many young people (including myself) feel alienated from his campaign for a number of reasons. But Donald Trump recognizes the necessity of a strong front against terror. In response Hillary Clinton pleaded with Americans that this is not a time for politics, a very presidential response:

Today is not a day for politics,” Clinton began. “On Sunday, Americans woke up to a nightmare that’s become mind numbingly familiar—another act of terrorism in a place no one expected.

And then proceeded to politicize the event just like Trump:

It’s essential that we stop terrorists from getting the tools they need to carry out the attacks, and that is especially true when it comes to assault weapons like those used in Orlando and San Bernardino

Which candidate would truly offer the gay community the best protection from radical Islam? Of course Trump is a radical example of a candidate, but Hillary Clinton is in denial of what the root issue actually is. All that passing regulation on "assault weapons" (which weren't even used in Orlando, might I add) would do is prevent Americans from protecting themselves. Had the club not been a gun-free zone, all it would have taken was a single armed individual to take the killer down.

The LGBT community lies at a crossroads, and faces a difficult situation in selecting a Presidential candidate. One pledges to prevent the influx of radicals, and the other pledges to regulate the tools that terrorists often use in the attacks. Which lies at the heart of the issue? Which do you think would be more effective in protecting the rights of the gay community?

Trump Response: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald...

Clinton Response: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/0...