Only the really globalist kool-aid drinkers are saying we have to admit more Muslims and just pray that they don't shoot up another gay nightclub, bomb another marathon, or fly planes into another skyscraper.
Instead, the debate seems to be focusing mostly on gun control, a debate that is always going to be with us, even if the Democrats became a populist and America-first party, a la the Bernie movement. It's an entirely domestic policy debate.
The Bernie people especially seem to have largely conceded the point about immigration from Muslim countries, by ignoring Trump's "incendiary" comments about it, when they're not the type to ignore incendiary comments. The major exceptions are Jewish and Muslim Sanders supporters -- the one being the most pro-globalist group out there, and the other being a major beneficiary of their propaganda.
I've noticed a similar response from MSNBC coverage. They are elitists rather than populists, but like the Bernie crowd, they are mostly interested in improving American society first, rather than optimally managing an interlocking global system. Of course they both have a liberal Romantic view of what the improved America looks like, but liberal vs. conservative is separate and independent from globalist vs. America-first.
"Liberal America-firsters" is a category that doesn't easily fit into the current climate, but give it a little while, and emboldened by the Bernie and Trump movements, we may see them argue more openly (if tepidly) for protecting Americans' interests against hostile foreign groups who cannot be mixed into our society without threatening American values and lifestyles.
Their response is a welcome change from the CNN / Clinton / Bush / Obama / Romney / Ryan crowd, who instead lecture us about the moral necessity of cosmopolitanism over "Islamophobia" after we've been invaded and attacked by jihadist foreigners.
There's been another change just since the San Bernardino attack last November -- do you remember liberals rushing to assure us that ISIS was not "really" Islamic? That was a transparently globalist talking point, to get us to shut up about curbing immigration from hostile cultures.
And of course that canard was nothing new, and not unique to Democrats and liberals -- in 2002, traitor-in-chief George W. Bush, who was truly a prog-tard ahead of his time, delivered this rationalization of multiculturalism, after the 9/11 attacks:
Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion. But it’s important, as we lift that veil, to remember that they are nothing but a bunch of radical terrorists who distort history and the values of Islam.
Translation: jihadists are the REAL infidels! Nothing to see here, folks.
This time around, we aren't hearing so much of these slight-of-hand arguments defending unchecked immigration from Muslim countries. Nobody is running with the narrative that the Orlando shooter wasn't a true Muslim, that he was hijacking a peaceful religion, #NotAllMuslims, etc. By now, the Trump campaign has worn away all of that PC bullshit, and given ordinary Americans permission to respond with common sense to yet another Islamic terrorist attack in our country.
In fact, that is the only angle to this attack that ignores the domestic gun control debate, and focuses on international questions -- it is the Trump movement's skepticism of globalism that is picking up steam, not the defense of open borders as a moral necessity.