Image 01 Image 03

Paris Attacks Bring Inevitable Calls for Gun Control From the Left

Paris Attacks Bring Inevitable Calls for Gun Control From the Left

Never let a crisis go to waste.

As the world reacts to the terror attacks in Paris and French authorities continue to address new developments, some progressives are pushing the left’s pet issue of gun control.

In order to understand their point, you have to completely ignore the fact that France has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and that the victims of the Paris attacks were completely unarmed.

Jenn Jacques reports at Bearing Arms:

Liberals Push Gun Control, Ignorant Rhetoric Following Attacks in Paris

I cannot imagine the horror the survivors of last night’s attack in Paris witnessed and I pray peace and comfort will embrace the family and friends of the victims. I watched the reports of the attacks unfold on HD, and like many Americans, sat in disbelief feeling helpless and dumbfounded…

Searching for information on Twitter for this ‘incoming information’ the President said would be forthcoming, I shouldn’t have been but I was still shocked to see liberals using the tragedy in Paris to call for gun control in America…

Here’s one more, via Twitchy:

It’s not just random people on Twitter, either. Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky recently made the same argument on a radio show. The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Schakowsky: Paris Attacks Show Need for More Gun Control

During a radio interview Monday, Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) said the terrorist attacks on Paris show the need for more gun control in America.

When asked by Tim Farley on SiriusXM’s The Morning Briefing about her thoughts on the attacks, Schakowsky said they should serve to remind Americans of the need for stricter gun laws.

“No, uh, obviously it is frightening for every western country, but I do want to remind you, 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,’” she said in audio first reported by Buzzfeed. “And that ought to be a chilling reminder because aside from blowing themselves up, which is, uh, of course, not about small weapons, these people used the kinds of weapons that are still available in the United States of America.”

“And I think it ought to cause us to have another consideration of sensible gun safety laws.”

Listen to the audio below:

And then, of course, there’s Obama.

Katie Pavlich of Townhall:

Obama: I Hope To Make Gun Control a Dominant Issue in 2016

President Obama gave us a sneak peak of his upcoming agenda for 2016, his last year in the Oval Office, during an interview with GQ Magazine. His top concern? Not ISIS, foreign policy or saving Obamacare, but…gun control of course. From the Washington Times:

President Obama hopes to make gun control the top issue of his final year in office, saying Americans aren’t more violent than other people but they “have more deadly weapons to act out their rage.”

In an interview published Tuesday in GQ magazine, Mr. Obama said easy access to guns is “the only variable” between the U.S. and other developed countries.

Asked by interviewer Bill Simmons of HBO if gun control will be the “dominant” issue on his agenda next year, Mr. Obama replied, “I hope so.”

Hm, I wonder if Obama considers France a developed country…..

It’s almost like the left cares more about their agenda than the safety of the American people.


Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“…sat in disbelief…”

then you haven’t been paying attention.

when one of these attacks happens here in the US, and one IS coming, it will be in a “gun free zone”, likely in a blue state.

that’s why i no longer go to malls, movie theaters, tourist attractions, etc, because i am NOT in a state of disbelief or denial about the threat.

refuse to be a victim, and just say “No” to government sanctioned shooting galleries.

    tobiathan in reply to redc1c4. | November 19, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    My first instinct on reading your comment was “..but if we avoid gathering and travelling freely then that means the bad guys are winning!”

    Then after thinking a moment it occurred to me that when that idea was commonplace immediately after 9-11 our nation was on the offensive AGAINST these terror-mongers. Now it *almost* seems as if our “leaders” were working with the terror-brokers. And, without the assumption of pro-active gov’t pursuit and denial of the opportunity for the Enemy to have such chance, it IS in fact more pragmatic to avoid targets of opportunity.

    In a SANE America guns would be for sale anywhere, anyone of age and a citizen could buy one, and this person could carry any firearm he owns in any way and anywhere he chooses, there would be NO laws restricting gun ownership, all citizens would own (or accept) guns, all sellers would use common sense and freedom to decide who he did business with and would refuse to do so immorally. In our formally smaller communities this was practical- and practiced.

    Guns are a part of America, historically and presently, and were until very, very recently a proud part of our culture. Our enemies despise this. Our friends resent it. Our true friends emulate this.

    Ohamma is the “Last, Best Chance” for the deadly-desperate Left. All our enemies have their eggs in his basket. Everything about the Left shrieks desperation, from campus crybabies to illegal indignant assholes crying for more of what they never deserved to begin with, BLM, OWS, MDA, DNC, CAIR, and on and on all are desperately trying an all-out attack to end America’s birthrights : Freedom of movement, Freedom of Speech and the Right to defend the first two via The Right to Bear Arms.

    I pray I’m wrong but the next year- 2016- might be the hardest yet and maybe it’s time to behave as if we were living in an occupied land- because we partially are.


    MattMusson in reply to redc1c4. | November 19, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    For the first time there is actually a legitimate reason to own an assault rifle. Syrian terrorists could come to your local mall to kill you.

      Twanger in reply to MattMusson. | November 19, 2015 at 2:54 pm

      The reason to own a “modern sporting rifle” has always been there. Many people have simply not thought far enough ahead, or have mistakenly thought that their state will always be there to protect them, when in fact their state is more likely to take away their ability to protect themselves.

      But for the mall? Naw.
      The thing to carry in the mall is something small and inconspicuous.

      DaveGinOly in reply to MattMusson. | November 20, 2015 at 2:01 am

      First responders at the Westgate Mall (Nairobi) attack were civilians, who went in while police loitered outside:

      “Officers from Nairobi police’s flying squad arrived at the scene but initially refused to enter. Meanwhile, armed volunteers from a neighbourhood watch scheme run by Kenyan-Indians in the nearby district of Parklands arrived.

      “Together with at least two uniformed police, Musungu and his colleague, they numbered roughly 30 and split into two groups. One team was detailed to take the ground floor, the other, led by Kenya Red Cross secretary-general Abbas Gullet, climbed the ramp to the roof-top parking. Other armed “samaritans” including Somali-Kenyan Abdul Hajji, the son of a former defence minister, Mohamed Yussuf Hajji, who had been texting his brother who was trapped inside, reached the scene soon afterwards.”

      I don’t think our police forces are so useless, but an armed civilian response can also be propitious.

      See also this excellent article:

Makes sense, I guess – we need increased gun control because terrorists in an officially gun free country were able to kill over 100 people with their already illegal automatic assault rifles. What they don’t seem to get is that the death toll would have probably been a bit less if people had been able to get concealed carry permits and been then allowed to carry concealed firearms into those locations. Maybe a lot less. Certainly not higher.

“that’s why i no longer go to malls, movie theaters, tourist attractions, etc, because i am NOT in a state of disbelief or denial about the threat.”

Same here, and I am discouraging everyone I know from going to those places too.

    Obie1 in reply to betty. | November 19, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    I will continue to go when and where I choose, but always with a nine mm on my hip. If my time is up so be it–maybe allah will mess up and I’ll get the virgins.

It’s as if one must abandon logic, reason and common sense to believe that an unarmed population- like the one in France- could be MORE SAFE FROM TERRORISTS than a population in which is, in fact, mostly well-armed as in America.

The Left obviously refuse to admit that 80% of gun violence within the confines of a couple hundred city blocks inside 4 American cities (Chicago, NYC, Detroit and New Orleans) with the most gun control in the country.

To be a Leftist one ignores Truth and embraces the Uniform Unicorn Utopian Dreamscape.

    mochajava76 in reply to tobiathan. | November 19, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    I have not heard those statistics referring to those 4 cities. Can you share a link for that? That would be helpful in conversations.

      tobiathan in reply to mochajava76. | November 19, 2015 at 12:32 pm

      Sure- the link is ”

        Because everything you read on the Internet is true, dontcha know?

          DaveGinOly in reply to Paul. | November 20, 2015 at 2:14 am

          Try searching for the statistics from the FBI and the DOJ. Others have done the math already (of which you would already have been aware if you were an avid seeker of knowledgeable commentary on America’s alleged “gun violence” problem) – when the gun violence of a handful of cities is removed from the stats, the US gun homicide rate falls to European levels. (And most of the violence in those cities is confined to particular neighborhoods. (If you think the wealthy neighborhoods of Chicago, Atlanta, Philly, or LA have a gun violence problem, you’re seriously delusional.)

          If you sought knowledgeable commentary on gun violence, you’d also know that the firearms homicide rate in this country have fallen 50% in the last 35 years or so. There is less reason to support increased gun control today than there was 35 to 40 years ago when it was twice the problem it is today. And since then the rate has halved during a time in which tens of millions more firearms have come into private possession (disproving “more guns equals more crime”), when most states have liberalized their concealed carry laws (some eliminating the need for a permit entirely), and a record number of Americans now conceal-carry.

          Paul in reply to Paul. | November 20, 2015 at 9:26 am

          Yes, I’m aware that a plethora of good empirical data is available on the internet. My comment was just a bit of snark aimed at the “here let me google that for you” comment. If you’re going to quote statistics, then back them up with links to the actual stats. Google is great, but you can also find the dregs of Huffpo and Pravda on there too.

          mochajava76 in reply to Paul. | November 20, 2015 at 12:12 pm

          Thanks Paul and DaveGinOly. I did not expect snark from a responder when I worded my question to infer I was not challenging his statement but was interested in the factual basis. On sports forums, that is the difference between a fanboy and someone knowledgeable in sabermetrics.

        tobiathan in reply to tobiathan. | November 21, 2015 at 9:24 pm

        It has been my experience that people who ask for links to statistics are either new to the issue or smugly challenging certain assertions. And often as not are also anti-gunners smugly trying to force me to do research that i have already done and which they themselves need to do *for themselves*.

        My answer was not “snark”. And if you think the “if it’s on the internet it must be true” cliche/sarcasm has validity you have no business being here either since this IS the intrawebz. Your smarm does not go unnoticed either.

        I gave an obtuse answer to an ambiguous question. Any one who favors gun rights already knows these answers. Only anti-gun covert liberals do things like that; anyone truly interested would have framed the request more straight-forwardly or looked around for themselves rather than taken my word for fact. And why list my “sources” to help someone pick them apart or question their validity.

        This is a comment board which borders on a discussion board at times but it is *not* a master’s dissertation requiring formatting, footnotes and bibliography.

        Sorry i didn’t feel helpful enough for some of you.

        Would YOU have stopped what you were doing to source out info you’ve read in numerous places? Seriously?

        I don’t mind debate or disagreement or even argument but let’s try to maintain a degree of intellectual integrity here, huh?

        My faults are plentiful but dishonesty is not among them.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to tobiathan. | November 19, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    New York City gun control worked – at least as long as it was combined with stop and frisk, and guaranteed jail for most people.

    New York City has the toughest gun control laws in the country and you shouldn’t compare New York City to Chicago, Detroit and New Orleans.

    In Chicago, if someone gets arrested with a gun, nothing much hapens to them. And a comment on this web site says, i part:

    New Orleans and Detroit have lax gun control.

    Now look where New York City falls:

    ThereAnd theer’s acomment

      What’s that smell?

      When were NY’s tough gun laws implemented? When did the crime rate begin to plummet, and why? Hint: it didn’t have anything to do with “tough gun laws” but had everything to do with “tough policing.”

      Now that they have a unicorn-fart huffing socialist in office, watch those crime rates head back the other way over the new few years.

“We are united in mourning all lives lost to gun violence.”

Even the terrorists?

The left is all about making people victims.

Bitterlyclinging | November 19, 2015 at 12:06 pm

Illinois’ most prominent Commie speaks, now that Barack (Named after Mohamed’s Horse)Hussein Obama occupies the White House, much to the detriment of the ordinary hard working American citizen.

I talked to a dad yesterday who told me that his “liberal” gay son who is in college was asked why he won’t vote for Bernie Sanders and he said, “I love my guns too much.” Hmmmmm. Maybe the dems need to rethink this gun control nonsense again. No, not really.

Here’s a new gun law I’m OK with: “Gun Free” signs printed in French, German, Italian, Farsi, …

I for one really hope that Hillary makes gun control her biggest platform issue… I have sent her campaign several messages that she should come out in support of a full ban on all semi-auto rifles and handguns along with ammunition quantity restrictions, mandatory registration, etc…

With any luck, she will pick that hill to die on…

You think Bataclan massacre would had happen in TX? Even at a hipster hangout?

I’m going to start printing up signs that say Free Gun Zone.

In liberal societies, from conception to around birth, women have exclusive abortion rites, then after birth that rite is extended to anyone who happens to choose a victim in a gun-free zone.

These Leftists are nucking futs. Mental midgets. Psychologically unstable.

They always illogically presume that making it more difficult for law-abiding people to obtain guns also means it will be more difficult for lawbreakers (which includes terrorists, I might add) to obtain guns.

(taking a page out of the homosexual “marriage” playbook)

Hey Libs: Against guns? Don’t have one. But don’t infringe upon my 2nd Amendment right just because you can’t handle it. My having guns doesn’t interfere with you living in your little zone of unreality ~

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to nordic_prince. | November 19, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    They always illogically presume that making it more difficult for law-abiding people to obtain guns also means it will be more difficult for lawbreakers (which includes terrorists, I might add) to obtain guns.

    What matters is if you make it more risky in terms of jail time, or losing possession of the gun for lawbreakers to carry or retain guns.

To the useful idiots (aka democrat voters), gun control is about “safety” or something that escapes me. To the leaders of the left, it about control. The founding fathers understood that and gave us the 2nd Amendment. The left never provides a logical argument–only lies.

Hillary did disarm her security detail, didn’t she? That would be safer–right?

How else are we going to put those awful, smelly conservatives into camps if they bitterly cling to their guns?
No way to make the peace loving, gun free Utopian society that libs want with them loose and armed.

Once the dogs are properly trained they bark regardless of which bell is rung.

– 9/11 happened with a couple of boxcutters and fully fueled passenger airliners.

– Boston Marathon bombing happened with a IDE in a slow cooker.

– The Christian Byzantine Empire was conquered by Muslims bearing scimitars.

Yes, let’s ban guns.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Aucturian. | November 19, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    To be fair to the Muslims who turned Constantinople into İstanbul, they took the walls down with cannons – pretty big cannons for that time. So, yes, they did have scimitars, but also cannons.

      Yes, cannons.

      But since we’re taking a walk down memory lane.

      The conquest of Spain by the Umayyad Muslims in the 8th century and destruction of Christian Antioch in the 7th century was accomplished by scimitars and a variety of non-combustible ballistic siege weapons.

When Isis lets loose with poison gas, let’s see this idiot Shakowsky try and hide herself and her family behind bodyguards.

Why is it these people’s faces always cry out, ‘Slap me’?

It’s going to be interesting to listen to the warped rationale clowns in the cult of ‘progressiveness’ continue to come up with as the problems they cause create catastrophes.

When a sick chick like this murders thousands of Americans with poison gas, or the like, what will the idiot women on ‘The View’ come up with so as not to mess with their slavish denial to their cult?’

Someone has to tell them these malignant bozos politics is not a sport, where you root for a team, not matter how bad it is. But, if someone did, it’d fall on their deaf ears. Go dimoccRats!

Let me get this straight. We live in a world where terrorism is becoming more common and where the preferred target is the civilian so the best strategy to take is to do all you can to ensure the potential victims are as defenseless as possible? This ranks right up there with releasing into the general public illegal immigrants who are known criminals, reducing sentencing for various crimes, early releases of criminals from our prisons, and redefining felonies as misdemeanors. What side are these people on? Are they trying to support and protect the law abiding citizen or are they trying to make terrorism and crime as safe and prolific as possible for the bad guys?

    tobiathan in reply to Cleetus. | November 21, 2015 at 9:58 pm

    I agree with you mostly. My main disagreement is in the release of *non-violent* prisoners, downgrading drug-only crimes to misdemeanors and changing sentencing rules on non-violent crimes. Crime used to mean *only* theft and violence. I think it should be again.

    The war on drugs is lost and doing far more harm than good. If our society invested in treatment instead of prison it would make all the difference. If addicts didn’t end up as criminals just for being addicts they’d stand a far greater chance to rehabilitate. Let the police focus on theft, destruction and violence and let people choose their own path.

    Many of the greatest people in history were what would be considered “addicts” today. Addiction treatment would also support a system capable of identifying and treating mental illness as well- another positive. Mentally ill persons don’t belong in prisons.

    Just opinion, for all it’s worth.

President Obama

“President Obama says the biggest frustration of his tenure is the lack of new gun control laws.”

The one area “where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied” is the fact that the United States “is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun safety laws,”

Code words “Common Sense, Gun safety laws”
Which means Gun bans, and gun confiscations.
I am happy to be part of the groups that have “frustrated” Obama at every turn! Obama does nothing but attack lawful citizen wanting nothing more then to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. We will NEVER EVER comply with unconstitutional laws that restrict our constitutional rights!

When Shrillary is President and there is a terrorist attack here she will confiscate all “assault weapons” by decree in order to “keep the country safe”. Congress will be panicked into going along with her the same way they were railroaded into creating the TSA after 9/11.

    The confiscators will dry up quickly after the first 50 or so turn up dead.

    tobiathan in reply to holdingmynose. | November 21, 2015 at 10:02 pm

    “Executive orders” are NOT laws, merely suggestions. They were never meant to be used outside the functions of federal bureaucracy and are not enforceable by any legal means.

    Why are presidents being allowed to used them like royal decree?

We definitely need to strengthen our gun laws because look how the lax French laws contributed to the terrorist attack. Oh, wait …