Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Allahu Akbar knifers part 4 – argument against guns


I have been told that not banning guns means the Allahu Akbar knifers can become Allahu Akbar gunners.

We have seen in fact massacres by Muslims with guns against non-believers both here and in Europe.

My answer to that is that there was no minimizing affect in these attacks because there were no guns to shoot the Muslims who were expecting to die in the end.  The Muslims in Europe got guns even though it is nearly impossible for non-Muslim citizens from owning guns.  We can’t stop drugs from flowing into the U.S.  In fact, that drugs are illegal create the flourishing drug trade.  You want a flourishing gun trade?  Ban them.  Only the wrong people have drugs.  Only the wrong people will have guns.

San Bernardino is in California.  You can’t get a concealed carry permit.  If someone in that room stopped the attack with a gun he or she was carrying illegally, the hero would have been hung on a lamp post for everyone to see.

It is acceptable by liberals to have these kind of losses in their quest to fundamentally transform America.

Criminals with records can’t buy guns legally.  It is true that without the near elimination of guns it is more easy for people with criminal intent to acquire them.  But if you eliminate guns they no longer serve as a deterrent.  Criminals do not want to get shot unlike Muslim killers.  You will be defending with sticks against thugs with baseball bats and they will smash your brains out.  And when they do invade your home they will do it in gangs.  You will be outnumbered, out youth-ed, out sized, to say the least.

And again, smashing your brains out is ok with liberals because we live in such a bad society.  It is society’s fault.

Summary:

Guns are needed to minimize the carnage of Muslims.
Guns are needed to deter criminals.

You cannot defend against knives, clubs, and guns without guns.

No comments:

Post a Comment