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
Hand over those Viagra pills Al! I'm losing my race pimp touch!
If you put a little mascara on the goats you'll hit paydirt.
9-11 and the D.C. Sniper proved that theory....oh wait....
“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.”
So ONLY 31% of Americans are so retarded that they prefer to be unarmed against armed killers? But 53% voted for Obama. The middle ground between Americans that voted for Obama and prefer to be unarmed victims is a weird bunch. They prefer to be armed, but vote to be disarmed.
The tip off here is this LAME "politically correct" idea that "more carnage" during times of war and conflict is unnecessary, undesirable and to be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately that is NOT true.
The Metrosexual way I surmise is to "Kumbaya" your way to peace.
ahahaha YES!
Shopping in Texas.
http://youtu.be/wIMiLF_L8s8
Michigan is an open carry and “shall issue” state. Once the “shall issue” went into effect back around 2002, the predicted gun fights in the streets killed off half our population and those still walking are the ones who won the battles......
another liberal democrat whack job reporter thinking Americans should just settle to be murdered instead of using a firearm to try to defend and survive being murdered by terrorists or any other thug
MSM believes more dead terrorists == more carnage.
May our future terrorists all find either a politicians’ home, or a lapdog media persons’ home to hide in.
Being a former analyst I can confidently say this out loud. Analysts are like Hookers and Lawyers, pay them enough and they will do or say anything...facts be damned.
When I read about how easy it is to get a gun now I laugh. Maybe for the criminals. Not if you follow the law.
Oh for Pete’s sake. MSNBC liberals occupy a different universe than I do.
Do they really believe that a criminal would decide not to carry arms because his victim was unarmed?
Yes, big trouble but being not big trouble myself ... almost call ya a Mam. Have 50/50 chance though.
Carnage or something? Definitively something....dead jiahadists. What you do when you have a firearm and the police are 15 to 20 minutes away.
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.