More Anti-Gun Laws? To Combat TERRORISM???

By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots

ft 1Illinois Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky was doing a radio interview a few days ago and she tried to make a case that was devoid of logic and any aspect of intelligence.

Before I continue, allow me to point out that Schakowsky is a congresswoman, from ILLINOIS and that IS important to this article.

Schakowsky’s inane point was this…because of the recent terrorist, the recent ISLAMIC terrorist attacks in Paris…we should adopt stricter GUN CONTROL laws in OUR country.

Here’s what she had to say on the matter…

“Obviously it is frightening for every western country, but I do want to remind you that before we killed a jihadist named Awlaki, he did a video that said to Americans, ‘Join the jihad and get guns,’ because it’s so easy in the United States of America to get a weapon. And that ought to be a chilling reminder because, aside from blowing themselves up, which is of course is not about small weapons. These people used the kinds of weapons that are still available in the United States of America. I think it ought cause us to have another consideration of sensible gun safety laws.”

You have got to be kidding me…

Islamic terrorist attacks…anywhere…are a reason for more gun control laws? As though a terrorist would obey our gun laws?ft 2

First of all…Paris is a virtual gun-free zone as is most of Europe. Nobody, none of the civilians in the line of fire in Paris were armed. Not a one of them had a fighting chance. Nobody at that soccer stadium, nobody at the mall, nobody at the bar and nobody in that concert hall had the ability to put an end to what was happening there. They had options…run or die but they did NOT have the option to shoot back.

Now then…I noted Schakowsky’s home state…Illinois…and what do we find IN Illinois? Chicago…and like Paris, Chicago is also a virtual gun-free zone and what have we seen so far this year in Chicago?

As of last Saturday, November 21st, 2015…there have been 2,689 shooting victims in the liberal, gun-free zone known as Chicago which is a higher total than ALL of 2014.

Let me just ask Schakowsky a couple of questions…

ft 3First…how many people who have pulled the trigger in Chicago so far this year do you believe were following that city’s strict gun laws when they did it?

Second…how many of those Islamic bastards in Paris do you think were adhering to the strict gun laws OF Paris when THEY went on THEIR barbaric rampage?

And third…what in THE hell leads you to believe that making our nation, our entire nation a virtual gun-free zone will make us SAFER from the criminals who ignore our laws regardless of what they are including Islamic barbarians…the ilk of which ran amok in Paris and Mali and the ilk of which Obama wants to import to our soil from Syria?

Using Schakowsky’s own words, what “ought to be a chilling reminder,” is that in a gun-free zone…only the worst elements of humanity…be they criminals and thugs on the streets of Chicago or Islamic terrorists in a concert hall in Paris…have guns and in either case, on the streets of Chicago or in that Paris concert hall, the law abiding are nothing but targets.

What the idiots like Schakowsky are advocating is not the creation of more gun-free zones but the creation of more target-rich environments as gun-free zones have ft 4become the most dangerous places to be because, once “safely” inside such a zone, one is a sitting duck.

In fact…according to a Crime Prevention Research Center study, in a report they released last year…92% of all mass shootings in a public area, between January of 2009 and July of 2014…were carried out in gun-free zones.

Given that statistic, and given that, whether we’re talking about a school shooting or a terrorist attack, the perpetrators are mental cases but there’s a vast difference between being a mental case and being butt-stupid. In either case, the terrorist or the nut case knows that in a gun-free zone, they will meet no resistance until the police arrive and that provides them with just enough time to do maximum damage…to shoot as many innocent people as possible.

What happens the instant that police do get to the scene? In most cases, the mental cases and Islamists either die in a shootout or they kill themselves.

So what exactly is Congresswoman Schakowsky’s point?

She intones that by invoking stricter anti-gun laws, we can somehow protect ourselves against the type of Islamic terrorist attacks that have unfolded in Mali and in Paris over the past week or so but nothing could be further from the truth.

What we’re talking abouft 5t here are not otherwise peaceful people who, just because we have a 2nd Amendment are prone to lawfully purchasing a firearm and then, out of the blue, going on a rampage. We’re talking about Islamic terrorists. A people steeped in an ideology of hatred, genocide and murder that has been their hallmark for the past 1400 years.

In the entire history of Islam, there has virtually never been a time that the ideology of its cult members has not centered around violence and death and no amount of anti-gun laws are going to stand in their way.

In fact, those Islamic terrorists are much more apt to use liberal anti-gun laws to their advantage and they have already demonstrated that on several occasions…Fort Hood, the Maryland Navy Yard and Chattanooga are prime examples of gun-free zones, used by Islamic terrorists, as killing grounds.

Rather than passing laws that make it all but impossible for We the People to protect ourselves, instead pass laws that make it all but impossible to import more of those who wish to see us all dead. We are told that bringing more Syrian “refugees” to America is the moral thing to do but it is most clearly not…not when we have no idea who those people really are and not when there is no mechanism in place to vet them properly.

In other countries, in Europe, where the same arguments have been made and Syrian ft 6“refugees” pour in, problems and crime abound. Rapes, murders, assaults, robbery are up and while those nations struggle to find ways to accommodate their new charges…those “refugees” are anything but grateful as they try to shame host nations into giving them more than refuge from a civil war.

Take the Syrian “refugees” in the Netherlands as an example, where one woman, not looking at all like a “refugee” told a reporter that, “This is not a life when you get inside to a room without a TV. Just a bed, there is no fridge, no lockers, no privacy. We’re going to stay outside because we don’t want to eat this food, and we don’t want to stay in the room. We’re running away from our country because of the situation, and now we live in a jail.”

The woman continued… “Here, it is not a life. There, we know there is a war, but here there is no life. You are sitting here in jail. It’s the same situation, but in Syria you ft 7can live for real. They are giving us just 10 to 12 Euro (a week). It’s not real.”

That is correct…she actually threatened to leave the Netherlands and return to Syria if not better compensated for being…a guest in their country.

Now I ask you…does that sound like someone who is grateful to be out of a war-torn country and away from the oppression of Sharia law and the murder of innocents or does that sound a whole lot more like someone who is out to take what they can from a nation with little to spare or to perhaps case that nation to see what obstacles ISIS might run into when they decide to attack there?

Now…watch this video taken during a Muslim “peace” conference in Norway back in 2013…

Given the claim that these are supposedly “moderate” Muslims…does this look to you like the sort of people who would emigrate to another country to blend in and assimilate into that country’s society or…

Does that seem more like the ilk that would insist that their new host country…”fundamentally transform” into something it was never intended to be?

Now let me take you back to 2008…

Are you starting to see the big picture now?

As a nation…our founders and framers never intended that we be disarmed nor did they ft 8ever intend for our nation to be subject to any other ideology’s rule of law but that is exactly what the ilk of Obama and Congresswoman Schakowsky want and should our guns be taken from us…another ideology…one of death, genocide and destruction is surely waiting in the wings.

To them I say…not only no but…


3 thoughts on “More Anti-Gun Laws? To Combat TERRORISM???

  1. The Democrats are trying their best to create a Muslim Brotherhood-dictated caliphate in America.
    Under the thumb of Islamists non-believers are not allowed to carry guns…it is “haram”. Only the Muslims are allowed to carry weapons. Also, non-believers are not allowed to drive cars or SUVs…the Muslims would drive the newest and best recreational vehicles.

Comments are closed.