Quote of the Day: So Much for Gun-Free Europe

rts6w2r

“With 500-1,000 euros (dollars) you can get a military weapon in half an hour. That makes Brussels more like a big U.S. city.” – Bilal Benyaich in Guns, God and grievances – Belgium’s Islamist ‘airbase’ [at reuters.com]

comments

  1. avatar Joe-in-NC says:

    They need more gun control. I am taking up a collection to send Hillary there to help them out.

    1. avatar LNJK says:

      I’ll donate to that.

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      I’ll chip in. But only if you send Bernie and Omally there too.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Throw in Warren, McCain, Feinstein, Schumer (both of them), McCuliff, Cuomo, Bloomberg, Shannon, Ladd and crew, etc, etc, etc, etc… when you start writing it out, it makes you realize it’s been far too long since we’ve had a trial for treason in this country.

    3. avatar JPD says:

      I’ll throw in an extra $5 if you include HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS…..OBAMA

      1. avatar John Dennis Tan says:

        I heard that the package deal would include leland yee, bloomberg and their boy toy kevin de leon.

        1. avatar Wood says:

          Just to be safe, let’s send em all. Not like the republicans haven’t worked against the Constitution at least as hard as the democrats.

  2. avatar G BOyd says:

    Looks like Paris has made a LIAR out of Mr. Obama. Yep, none of our Neighbors in Europe have had a mass shooting in years. Talk about fish in a barrel. Our country DOES NOT have a commander that is willing to keep American citizens safe. Now we NEED our guns !!

    1. avatar CRF says:

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Barry make that comment after the Charlie Hebdo incident?

    2. avatar jans says:

      Parisians were able to brush aside the attacks in January because only Jews and cartoonists were targeted. They are now experiencing what the Israelis have been experiencing for the last 50 years.

      1. avatar Wee Liam says:

        Palestinians also.

    3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Not only is it impossible for any “commander” to keep Americans safe, it is not something anyone sane wants to see happen. Only individuals, their families and voluntary associations are responsible for their safety. Do you not understand the real problem with “Dial 911 and Die?”

      “We” need our guns because nobody else is going to take care of it for us, regardless of how much they want to do so. And most of those who say they want to, are perfectly happy to see us die as helpless victims. As long as they are in control, it’s all one to them.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Spot on!

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        +1,000,000. I hear this criticism of Obama all the time, that he’s not “keeping us safe”. He can’t. Nobody can keep you safe but you, and even then it’s a crap shoot. You might do everything right, and bad shit might still happen to you.

        The legitimate criticism in this vein is that Obama is actively trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves. Which, to me, is far worse than failing at the ridiculously impossible task of trying to keep all Americans “safe”.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        MamaLiberty,

        A point of clarification: we need a large scale, coordinated capability to respond to large scale, coordinated attacks. You and I and our neighbors in our local community, armed to the teeth, cannot stop an invasion force of 10,000 attackers with close air support. For those sorts of threats, we need an organized counter force. And it is government’s charter to organize and equip that force. From that perspective, government can and should provide that level of protection and we should be able to depend on it to keep us “safe” — even if strictly from a deterrent standpoint.

        When it comes to smaller attacks such as the recent attack in Paris, it is up to local individuals and their community to defend themselves against such attacks … we cannot depend on someone else to keep us “safe”.

        For further clarification, it is reasonable to expect that government organized and equipped forces can keep us “safe” from large scale, coordinated attacks because such attacks are apparent before they happen … it is impossible to transport an invasion force of 10,000 troops and air support to the middle of the United States without our surveillance activities seeing it coming. On the other hand, it is impossible for our surveillance activities to see an attack before it happens when the attackers are nothing more than a few people with small arms … which is why it is up to us to keep ourselves “safe” from such threats.

        1. avatar Anon in Ct says:

          Sure, but it is supposed to be the Federal government’s job to police the borders, and control who enters. While individuals may have to take care of the leakers, it’s supposed to be the Feds’ job to limit the number of those leakers.

          The stream of Syrians (and others) into Europe right now is at worst a full-scale invasion and at best a colonization effort. The EU and the various European government have been completely derelict in their duty to the citizens and/or subjects (as applicable).

          I thought those pictures of the drowned children were awful, and my heart goes out to the genuine refugees. If the EUnicks were smart they would work with the Turks, and use their respective militaries (esp Medical, Engineers, MPs and Coast Guard) to (i) see that refugees stuck in Turkey are properly sheltered and fed, and given basic medical care, (ii) take the logistic and financial strain off of the Turks, and (iii) ensure that no further refugees make it to continental Europe. If the Europeans actually did this, I would be fully in support of the US supporting that mission with transportation and logistics assets, as well as additional medical resources.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          I’d suggest you go back and read the history surrounding the American Revolution. Not the drivel they teach in “school” – the real deal. Americans won their freedom in spite of the continental congress, not because of it.

          Then, contemplate just why there has not been any real attempt of massive armed forces to invade the continental Americas since.

          I know it’s probably not an accurate quote, but there is something very satisfying – and true – about the “rifle behind every blade of grass” thing. The individuals who are ready and willing to defend themselves and their communities can realistically come together to meet more widespread threats.

          What we get with your answer is the endless “war” in the Mideast, and all the other mindless, useless interventions this “government” has imposed on the people of America – and nearly everyone else – for at least two hundred years. Oh, what was that “national debt” again? This is the government you would trust to keep us safe from invasion?

          I suspect the local unorganized militia could get themselves a little organized and do one hell of a better job keeping “us” safe – one blade of grass at a time.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          MamaLiberty,

          I am well aware of actual history, not the whitewashed history that our indoctrination centers (vast majority of our public schools) pass off as history. None other than the United States Constitution empowers the federal government to operate a navy as well as organize, equip, and call forth the militia to suppress insurrections and enforce the laws of the Union.

          Sure, we have a huge advantage in our large population of armed people that are the largest army in the world. Our giant armed militia is utterly and totally impotent to stop a foreign navy that decided to shell Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, or New York City. Neither would our rifles stop a foreign air force from bombing almost any city in the United States. The only answer to stop a foreign military from leveling cities — from beyond the reach of our rifles — is our own military. And that should be about the extent of our military’s duties. As for stopping an old-fashioned ground invasion with house-to-house and street fighting, that is up to all of use with our rifles — assuming a foreign military somehow managed to land an invasion force without our Navy and Air Force destroying them at sea before reaching the U.S. mainland.

          As for U.S. troops all over the world, I have a hard time seeing the justification for all of those activities. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to all of the intelligence and financials implicated in those actions so I have no basis to find explicit fault — I can only surmise implicit fault as many suggest.

          As for our national debt, it would be on the order of $1 trillion dollars due to the recent war in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of the $20 trillion due to unfunded entitlements. And while that $1 trillion is obscene, it is a heck of a lot easier to repay than the additional $19 trillion in entitlements.

        4. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          “The only answer to stop a foreign military from leveling cities — from beyond the reach of our rifles — is our own military. ”

          Even if that was a good idea… just how did you propose to limit government to this function? I can’t see it’s worked out for anyone but the “rulers” and politicians since the beginning of recorded history. And it’s never BEEN limited, by any means. Involuntary government is a cancer. It feeds on the foolish belief that the “people” can be both controlled and still control the government. That’s the fraud of the “constitution.”

      4. avatar Dustin says:

        I wish there were more women like MaMa Liberty; Chicks with BRAINS!

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Thanks, Dustin. 🙂 This “chick” is 70 years old, and I still shoot almost every day. Reaching out to others, especially women, is one of life’s joys.

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    So… Why haven’t these clowns tried this garbage in the US? Because they would get lit up like a Christmas tree. Gun control at its finest people.

    1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

      I doubt this is true. There are many places in the US they could rampage for several minutes unopposed.

      1. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

        “There are many places in the US they could rampage for several minutes unopposed.”
        Not in fly over country – where even what was Blue Dog Democrats still may vote D but still love hunting and their weapons.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          I wish that were true, but even in “flyover country”, the number of people who go armed every day is probably less than five percent. Even if it were fifty percent, there are still plenty of “gun free zones” that could be targeted. With careful target selection, there’s no reason an attack similar to Paris couldn’t happen in any city in America, with similar results.

      2. avatar Sian says:

        Our police are now much better armed and more aggressive. Even in the liberal Utopias, nobody is going to go unopposed for 20 minutes while they leisurely murder anymore.

        1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

          I suspect that they would find a crowded place with few entrances and could easily control it for more than 20 minutes. For instance a old large stone church filled with non-carriers would be an especially appropriate spot.

        2. avatar Galtha58 says:

          @Sian: So, the solution is a Police State? If you thought gun controls were a great idea you will just love a Police State…..NOT! In most areas the police still won’t get there in time to stop the killing. Even a 5 minute response time is time enough for someone to shoot and kill many people. Or they can just use a bomb. In that case the response time does not matter. What matters is either stopping the aggressor before the action, which is probably impossible in many cases, or stopping them immediately after they start, in the case of shootings. There is no way that we can afford a Police Force that can be everywhere, all of the time. And most of us would not want that anyway. I don’t want to give up my freedom to feel safe because the solution is worse than the problem.

        3. avatar Dustin says:

          There are plenty of places in Liberal Enclaves where they can go way more than 20 minutes before the cops even get dispatched, much less show up…

          When this happens here, it’ll be similar. Even though we have the blueprint already.

          Americans, especially democrats, are far too stupid to learn even when it’s all handed to them, covered in blood.

      3. avatar Imasahm says:

        I know of a few anti-gun homes they could use for practice! A friendship ended with one of them over us allowing our son and neighborhood boys to play airsoft! That’s how anti-gun the left (aka commies) is.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I think they did try it, and got lit up like a Christmas tree. So of course we don’t see the 100+ people that didn’t get killed.

    3. avatar CTstooge says:

      They’re gonna try it. In any number of metropolitan utopias packed with gun-free sheeple. No different than Paris.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        We both know that those “utopias” anything but gun free. They are just free of “legal” guns. ISIS versus the Latin Kings? I’d put my money on the Kings.

        1. avatar Warlocc says:

          That’s one of the few times I’d root for inner city gangs.

      2. avatar actionphysicalman says:

        6 or 8 trained and happy to die guys with AKs, hard armor, and radios could wreak havoc just about anywhere that there isn’t a military or paramilitary unit ready and close. How many of us even on this list could do much against them even in a pair. I for one don’t usually have a rifle with me and I am a not very good shot especially under stress. I can’t even say I wouldn’t just get away as best I could.

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          One guy with a pistol took out the two muslim terrorists with semi-automatic rifles with thirty rnd magazines intent on committing mass murder. at the Muhammad cartoon competition in Texas.

          There were various venues in Paris where there was only one or two muslim terrorists where one person with a pistol could have stopped them, if they timed it right.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          actionphysicalman,

          If you find yourself seriously outgunned in a scenario like you described, you have to use your most important weapon — your brain — and adjust your tactics. Obviously, taking on all 6 attackers at once in a frontal assault is a no-go.

          Escape might be the most sensible option.

          Sniping may be the most sensible option.

          Employing improvised weapons may be the most sensible option. For example, hard armor doesn’t stop a carafe of 140 degree coffee from blinding an attacker and scalding his/her face. Hard armor doesn’t stop you from crushing an attacker’s head, breaking an attacker’s arm, or disabling an attacker’s rifle with a stool or other club.

          Distraction and impeding your attackers with a metaphorical “minefield” of obstacles (desks, chairs, shelves, debris) could be a critical edge along with making the floor slippery with water, oil, etc.

          And, combining these tactics could be quite formidable, especially if you have multiple defenders working in concert. As an attacker or attackers try to navigate a debris field on slippery floors, one defender with a pistol can shoot at the attacker’s legs, while another defender splashes hot coffee in an attacker’s face, while yet another defender bludgeons that attacker — all while other defenders are throwing hard objects at the attackers and also looking to bludgeon the attackers.

          That last scenario is anything but a guarantee that all of the defenders will survive. It is a guarantee, however, that the attackers will kill far fewer people.

        3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Sure, but just imagine how much more effective that defense would be if a dozen or more of the defenders had guns… and knew how to use them. I’ll use a chair or a cup of hot coffee if that’s all I have, but it’s not my first choice. That’s why I carry a gun.

        4. avatar Stinkeye says:

          uncommon_sense, the tactics you describe may or may not be effective against determined jihadists, but we know for sure that they will stop the Wet Bandits from stealing your TV if you’re home alone.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Stinkeye,

          I know the tactics that I described remind us of the Home Alone franchise and may seem silly. The fact remains that those tactics may very well be your only hope if you are facing multiple attackers with ballistic vests, plates, and rifles. Multiple victims with handguns facing such attackers have almost no chance.

          But don’t take my word for it. Review the North Hollywood Shootout of 1997 where two men in body armor fired 1,100 rounds against dozens of Los Angeles police officers over the course of more than 20 minutes. Keep in mind that police fired over 650 rounds from handguns and shotguns during that 20+ minutes with basically no effect. If several dozen police shooting their handguns and shotguns took more than 20 minutes to finally neutralize two guys with heavy body armor, a few victims armed with handguns really don’t stand a chance if they only rely on their handguns. The victims need to employ different tactics.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      pwserge,

      There was at least one attempt in Garland, Texas in May of 2015 and police (who were apparently tipped off) killed the terrorists before they got inside the facility where they intended to kill their victims.

      Unfortunately for the people of France, their government implemented gun control to its logical end: even their police are largely unarmed. And many/most of the few police who are armed have poor training and nothing more than service handguns — which means they are incapable of stopping a serious armed attack. For those reasons, the terrorists with rifles who attacked people inside the Bataclan venue in Paris met no resistance over the course of 10 to 15 minutes or more until they finally committed suicide. And who knows how much longer they could have operated until a serious police response with rifles assembled and breached the building?

      As much as we criticize police in the United States, I cannot picture their response being anywhere near as ineffective as the police in Paris who allowed terrorists to operate with impunity for 15 minutes or more in the heart of a major city. If terrorists tried something like that in heart of Phoenix, Houston, Tampa, Los Angeles, etc., I am pretty confident that multiple police officers with rifles and/or shotguns would be engaging the terrorists within 7 minutes.

      Of course, in a region of the country where open/concealed carry is commonplace, the terrorists may have found themselves taking return fire almost immediately.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        “I am pretty confident that multiple police officers with rifles and/or shotguns would be engaging the terrorists within 7 minutes.”

        Or, as in the Sandy Hook shooting, the first cops on scene will arrive five minutes after the shooting starts and spend ten more minutes trying to figure out what’s going on before entering the building. That’s not necessarily a criticism of the police – I can only imagine how chaotic and confused such a scene is, and having to sort it all out while bullets are flying is an incredibly difficult job.

        My point is simply that life isn’t movies, and the cavalry doesn’t always make it in time. The French did themselves no favors by largely disarming their police force, absolutely. But I’m very skeptical that the police response would be all that much better in an American city, or that the death toll would be significantly lower.

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “So much for gun-free Europe.”

    That is just cold. Of course it is also true.

  5. avatar Removed_californian says:

    One thing I keep asking just out of sheer surprise is where someone buys a grenade. I know it’s black market, BUT WHERE IN THE HELL DOES SOMEONE EVEN FIND ONE? And who is dumb enough to tote them around?

    Probably one of the safer things they do comparative to strapping up slipshod suicide vests. At least the ‘nades were made to a certain spec and probably won’t randomly kill the user.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      Grenades are harder to get here than most of Europe since we don’t have any nearby and easily-accessable conflict zones.

    2. avatar Zach says:

      I think my linguist told me that they were going for about 8 dollars each when I was in Bosnia. Yeah it was a long time ago but I am pretty sure a lot of that stuff is still floating around there. I do remember a few years after seeing a news story about how a guy in Germany got caught with a few and he had bought them at the Arizona market there in Bosnia which is kind of like a big flea market.

  6. avatar Stateisevil says:

    I understand that until about 30 years ago, a law abiding citizen could easily be armed with anything they wanted. There isn’t a strong gun culture in France, but certain areas were exceedingly well armed. I hear now it is all but impossible for average people to carry handguns, but that long gun ownership in the home is possible after much hoop jumping. Just not machine guns, which are now banned under EU law.

  7. avatar Joe R. says:

    The heck with guns on the Paris issue, ISIS typically likes knives and machete-type weapons.

    How’d they kill as many as they did? They killed everyone that got in line for it.

  8. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    I will keep asking godless libertarians. What book tells you that murders and rapist have the right to travel as they please to any nation?
    What book tells you there should be no national borders or no border enforcement?

    Is it about race? Is it OK to have Kate Steinly killed by a six time deported illegal alien in San Francisco? Is it just the cost of doing business in the homosexual power city of San Francisco? I remember when an illegal alien shot and killed a father and his two sons in SF about three years ago and back then you had not trouble with him bring here illegally.

    Did the muslims kill the wrong white people, the French instead of killing the correct people the Americans?
    I am trying to understand your thought process.

    Reason Magazine has several writers who support allowing illegal aliens murders to stay in America and to come here unrestricted.
    Jerry Rivers of Fox NEWS got a nice book deal for supporting the right of illegal alien murders and rapist to stay in the US when he was on the o’rielly factor. Now that it was his own daughter is threatened with death in paris, does he now call for the killing of, in his words these barbarians.

    Is that what it comes down to libertarians whose ox is gored?

    1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

      Great straw man slaying.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        I understand you don’t believe in a god. That is fine with me. Please explain why it is ok to not enforce a national border.

        Be of good courage. I’m sure you can use ” reason” to explain why illegal aliens should be allowed to come and go as they please.
        Other TTAG libertarians have told me just a week ago they were against national border enforcement, when women in Austria were buying up all the shotguns because they have a fear of muslims.

        Are the women of Austria acting without reason when they buy every long gun they can legally purchase without a waiting period? The homosexual law maker Tom Ammiano wrote the law in California that makes rape victims or any else wait up to 10 days longer to get a gun. How does this denial of civil rights help anyone? Ammiano claims he was discriminated against so how is he helping anybody?

        Are the French the wrong white people to kill? Is it because over 100 of them were killed? When Israelis were stabbed the Secretary of state John Kerry said isreal should not retaliate. Kerry supports french retaliation. Are jews worth less than french people?

        Donald Trump is correct. The 911 hijackers visas expired several months before their suicide airplane ride into the twin towers. That puts them in illegal alien status.

  9. avatar DerryM says:

    So, Belgium is the gun black market capital in Europe. Possibly the source for the grenades and explosives,as well.

    A bit of research indicates Belgium is fairly peaceful place, but has a thriving Black Market in firearms and explosives that functions daily around the Railway Hub in Brussels, despite Draconian gun control laws imposed on Belgian Citizens. Just google Belgian gun laws if you have time to read awhile.

    Conveniently located for Daesh, the Belgian Arms Market is ready and willing to sell to whomever has the Euros no questions asked. Apparently, moving these illicit Arms around in Continental Europe is fairly easy, as well.

    1. avatar Don says:

      That’s the joy of the EU, open borders…. even the UK has a hard time stopping arms smuggling in freight shipments.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Thanks, Don. I suspected such was the case, but hadn’t researched it yet.

    2. avatar Philthegardner says:

      One thousand Euros for a full auto AK or CZ with no tax stamp and no receipts?????? You WISH they had this in America. Myself, I would jump on this in an instant if I could just figure out a way to get the hardware home. Makes that $2500 semi-auto SCAR seem absolutely ridiculous.

  10. avatar KenB says:

    They will try they will have some success.

    I don’t think these are hard armor guys, they are ready to die, they have suicide belts/vests. I suspect that as soon as lead starts flying in their direction they will detonate to finish their ‘mission’

    Eyes up, lets pop these pieces of sh*t in the parking lot before they can cause to much trouble.

  11. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Mr. Benyaich has obviously never tried to buy a firearm in a ‘big US city’ where you can’t even get a gun with a shoulder thing that goes up.

    1. avatar Don says:

      Of course you can, but you have to get it from your drug dealer, they have the weapons franchise as well.

  12. avatar DrVino says:

    What a crock. Belgium is surrounded by gun-free unicorn utopias.

  13. avatar Jim says:

    Lucky Europeans. I wish I could get a military weapon in a half hour with only $500-1000.

  14. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin) says:

    Let’s not delude ourselves like the antis do. While gun control laws cannot stop bad guys from getting guns and explosives to do their job an armed citizenry can at best only do damage limitation and only if they have the right tools.

    Just read the “What I carry” series and you see that what the majority of carrying public totes around is not the right the gun for the job. People carry personal defense pistols like a LC380 or a S&W 642 . At best the average CC has a G-26 type gun. These are just fine for stopping a mugger at close range but are next to useless in a Paris style attack. They lack the accuracy and ballistic performance to engage a long gun armed threat. If you are not toting around your MSR then the full sized double stacked pistol is the appropriate weapon. Realistically it still a long shot but a full size will give you more standoff range and accuracy.

    Terrorists aren’t stupid. If they believe that armed citizens are a threat to their operations, they will adapt as they have in Israel where there are plenty of police and soldiers toting fully automatic weapons around.

    1. avatar James Lee says:

      I wish we could all CC a G17 and a VP9 with a BCM slung over. But before even walking half a mile cops will show up with guns drawn cuz some hoplophobe said “there’s a man with a gun”. Yea, in a politically correct, neutered culture like ours merely having a gun is a crime to most people’s mind. It is what it is man… it s a sad state of affair but it s reality. Yet we would still protect those hoplophobes when the push comes. Carry whatever u can carry concealed and that s all we can ask for.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        That’s the beauty of New Mexico. I can OC a full sized 1911 or Sig-Sauer 10mm most places I could CC.

        With these pistols, I’ve trained out to 25 to 50 yards and can hit a man sized target in the torso 10 out of 10 times.

      2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        I can admit I am wrong. I was over at the LGS picking up some ammo and did my usual cruise by the counter. The G-17 has a honking big profile. More like a 686. Not very concealability at all. Anot her advantage to Springfield. I can CC my XD 45 Service with no problems.

      3. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        I can admit I am wrong. I was over at the LGS picking up some ammo and did my usual cruise by the counter. The G-17 has a honking big profile. More like a 686. Not very concealability at all. Anot her advantage to Springfield. I can CC my XD 45 Service with no problems.

  15. avatar James Lee says:

    Just what the f does a terrorist attack have to do with gun control? Shameless antis. They honestly think that was caused by guns? Either pushing their agenda or just sheer stupidity

  16. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Gee I wish I could buy a freakin’ full auto AK for a thousand bucks.On the street corner market. Well I am part French/Belgian…even got a FB French relative with the same last name(a rare name).

  17. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Gee I wish I could buy a freakin’ full auto AK for a thousand bucks.On the street corner market. Well I am part French/Belgian…even got a FB French relative with the same last name(a rare name).

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      You can make one for a lot less. Depending on suppliers of objects is no different from depending on suppliers of government checks. If you can’t do it yourself; yep, you lose.

  18. avatar Dustin says:

    We’ve discussed how this is going to happen. We’ve discussed the mobs of fools waiting in line outside the metal detectors. We’ve discussed the liberal enclaves. We know how overconfident SWAT is.

    One such event draws in the mob of LEO retards. Then, the real attack happens… And all the dumb LEOs get shot from behind. OR, the diversion attack pulls them all away and they’re free to run rampant for hours elsewhere…

    It’s easy when people are so stupid… Reap what they sow. Even though we lay it all out, explain it, etc… It’s still going to happen.

    They’ll do it on a larger scale. That way, even though a Concealed or Open Carrier nips it int he bud, it’ll still have a large death toll and the anti’s will come out saying that gun ownership doesn’t work, ignoring , as they always do, how much worse it would have been if the legal gun owner hadn’t intervened…

    Who’s side are the anti’s really on? They very clearly want this stuff to happen…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email