Posted on 01/10/2015 11:03:40 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
If two Islamic terrorists were on the loose in your neighborhood or city, would you want easy access to firearms in order to protect yourself? Well, MSNBC analyst and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson thinks access to weapons in the United States would cause "more carnage" in that situation. From Real Clear Politics:
"Just to keep it into perspective, I don't think we should imagine that the conditions and the threat are exactly the same in the United States as they are in France. They are different. In fact, one thing that is different here is weapons are universally available and so it is actually a very good thing that, that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more carnage."
More carnage? For who? Terrorists confronted by armed Americans? It was just a few months ago when Vaughan Foods CEO Mark Vaughan shot and killed Islamist Alton Nolen after he beheaded a female co-worker and was stabbing another in Oklahoma City.
A few things. First, Said and Cherif Kouachi used AK-47s a rocket launcher during their Charlie Hebdo murder rampage earlier this week in Paris. AK-47s are banned in France and rocket launchers are as well. They still had no problem carrying out their attack, killing 12 people for the simple crime of drawing cartoons of Mohammed. Let's not forget that unarmed French police retreated in the face the heavily armed Kouachi brothers. Second, if an attack like this happens in the United States, it will most likely be in a place like New York City or Washington D.C. where civilians are incapable of defending themselves. Third, weapons in the U.S. aren't "universally accessible" as Robinson claims and require paperwork, background checks and significant waiting times in some states.
Robinson's comments remind me of the Boston Marathon bombing when Islamic bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were on the run and people were told to barricade themselves inside their homes. People of Boston were also told the Tsarnaevs were armed, dangerous and potentially taking hostages. This is what I said at the time:
"Oh, the guy who bombed Boston is on the loose in my neighborhood? Super glad I don't have an AR-15 with 30 round mags" Said nobody, ever. — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) April 19, 2013
After the manhunt in Boston finally ended, a Fox News poll showed that 69 percent of Americans would have wanted a gun if they were in that situation.
On Friday, the nation watched as the Boston area went under lockdown during a manhunt for the armed and dangerous marathon bombing suspect. If you were in that situation, would you want a gun at your side?
Most American voters say yes, according to a new Fox News poll.
Sixty-nine percent say if they were in a situation similar to Bostonians, they would want a gun in their house.
That includes a large 88-percent majority of those in gun-owner households, as well as 50 percent of those in non-gun homes.
When it comes to fighting terrorism, the "universal access" to firearms for civilians in the United States is a good thing and by the way, Islamic terrorists don't give a damn about gun control (unless of course it means more control on the very people they want to slaughter, then they like the advantage).
H/T Mediaite
The first one or two incidents might be bloodbaths.....but they would also be the last incidents.
As those journalists found out, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away (or unarmed, in this case) but we should all still give up our weaponry, blah, blah, blah...
If they’d been armed then some of them could have stood a chance.
Unarmed — no chance at all.
Inquiring minds ask:
Does MSNBC have guns? None?
How many guards protect each of the
terroristophile anchors who are PR flacks for
Obola and his corrupt administration’s fraud,
each and every night? None?
“The future must not belong to those who are capable of defending themselves against Islam.”
That’s what Eugene doesn’t want you to have. Of course, he works in a building guarded by armed men and probably lives in a gated community guarded by armed men.
Sums it up very well!
You said...
“Inquiring minds ask:
Does MSNBC have guns? None?”
Inquiring minds ask:
Does MSNBC have an audience?None?
Robinson sounds like one of those “progressive” girlymen who would gladly take a bullet if it helps further the Islamofascist cause. A real sissy boy.
Liberals don’t care because they can hire bodyguards or they get special political privileges to bear arms.
They just don’t want the riff-raff to own them.
MSNBC: Solution To Terrorism: Lay Down, Die Quickly
Remember something that happened near my neck of the woods after 9/11. There were conversations in many churches. The congregations wanted to go to War with the islam people. Pastors were put in a quandary. Police were brought in to talk with congregations. Took a while to calm ‘the People’ in the pews from the pulpits, as it should have taken time to calm ‘the People’. Shots were reportedly fired at two imams in my local. Media reported it once then FBI (recon it was FBI) had those reports quelled. What am speaking of did happen! Point is this ... if those ragheads want a War, on them, Americans can oblige them one hundred fold.
To be sure, if an attack were launched and hundreds of armed civilians converged on the site in response, there is a really, really good chance of blue-on-blue.
Absent uniforms or other identification, how do you tell who is on which side?
A somewhat hypothetical concern, to be sure.
Eugene Robinson must make lots more money than I think he does if he can afford constant personal protection guards. They’re VERY expensive and only utilized 24/7 by hundred-millionaires, billionaires and high government officials. Regular millionaires and celebrities only use them when they anticipate trouble.
No, guns are loud and dangerous and scary.
On another note.. if I got some goats, do you reckon I might could attract some terrorists?
We're kind of short on bad guys out here. Gets boring sometimes.
I bet if the people in the French supermarket had been allowed to conceal carry, they would be alive today.
Their blood is upon the heads of President Hollande and the French government as much as it is on the heads of the Islamic terrorists who murdered them.
No democratic government has the right to deprive us by force of our right of self-defense, period.
Rodney King and other L.A. riots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.