[Mary Etheldreda]

I'm just wondering, with all this talk about guns killing people in Paris, isn't it pretty obvious that if they didn't take away the Second Amendment in France, Charlie Hebdo would have been able to defend himself?

I don't agree with Hillary Clinton, that we should sympathize with the terrorists just because I Dream of Genie featured a "strong, Muslim woman."

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

I'm just wondering, with all this talk about guns killing people in Paris, isn't it pretty obvious that if they didn't take away the Second Amendment in France, Charlie Hebdo would have been able to defend himself?

I don't agree with Hillary Clinton, that we should sympathize with the terrorists just because I Dream of Genie featured a "strong, Muslim woman."

I don´t think these people would have been able to defend their selves, even with more liberal gun laws. Some people like guns and know how to use them, I doubt the people at Charlie would even want to touch a gun. They believe a pencil is mightier then a sword. In the short run a pencil seems to fail as protection against a kalashnikov. I hope in the long run it will not.

[Prayer Warrior]

Foxnews is the only news organization willing to uncover the true reasons behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo: Europe's lavish welfare state. As military experts reveal, Europe's ridiculously lavish welfare programs attracted dirtbags who don't want to work. Even people with a religion as ridiculous as Muslims are able to be someone competent when being blessed by God's favorite nation. Unfortunately, when you have so called "open hearted" and open handed elites, the average citizen gets screwed over.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/0...-the-us/202053

As Fox News also points out, the incompetent Obama administration is cowtowing to radical Muslims by neglecting to acknowledge that this is an Islamic attack

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...-paris-islamic

This man brings up an excellent point: Police are not militarized enough. We need to have heavily armed cops with automatic weapons patrolling the streets just so cops know that they're there. If you're one of the good guys you should have nothing to fear from our law enforcement officers. Another Fox News host also calls for more racial profiling. This is just what we need in order to cut down on terror.

In conclusion

1. Welfare attracts dirtbag terrorists who are too lazy to work
2. Obama cowtows to Muslim radicals
3. The police are not militarized enough
4. We need more racial profiling.
5. Europe's cops are even lazier and bigger wusses than Europe's citizens.

[Cranky Old Man]

Originally Posted by Roland

I don´t think these people would have been able to defend their selves

So in your view, even though terrorists have guns, their victims are not allowed to have guns to defend themselves?

This means you are a terrorist yourself. Why do you hate Jesus, America and freedom so much?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

I don't know, Sister Mary Etheldreda. This might work in other countries, but I think the experience of 2 World Wars has taught us that even if you arm a Frenchman, he will still just surrender. There is nothing to suggest that this Charlie person would have been any different.

[Russell Holbeck]

Hello Mary Etheldreda.

I have been watching the news and I am sorry that Charlie Hebdo was killed by Muslims also I do not understand why someone would kill a person who draws comics my wife liked a comic strip called Apartment 3-G.



I did not like it but I would not kill the person who drew it.

Thank you.

Rusty

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Prayer Warrior

In conclusion

1. Welfare attracts dirtbag terrorists who are too lazy to work
2. Obama cowtows to Muslim radicals
3. The police are not militarized enough
4. We need more racial profiling.
5. Europe's cops are even lazier and bigger wusses than Europe's citizens.

This all makes perfect sense. Thank you!

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

I think the outcome of this ridiculous business speaks volumes. Here is the tally so far:

Terrorists: Charlie + 9 of his friends + 2 armed policemen + a policewoman (we can probably assume she wasn't armed, as even the French aren't so dumb as to arm a woman) + 4 hostages in a kosher supermarket. That makes 17, plus a whole bunch of people injured.

Police: 3 terrorists.

Now you will notice that the number of terrorists killed by the police = the number of police killed by the terrorists. So if the police hadn't even bothered to turn up - say if it had happened during their lunch-break - it would have been less lethal all round.

As I said earlier, if Charlie and his friends had been armed, they would have surrendered or even run away, in which case this whole thing need not have happened at all. So I have changed my mind and think yes, the French do need to reinstate the Second Amendment.

The most important lesson the French can learn from this is that in an islamofascist terror situation, smart people give kosher supermarkets a wide berth.

[Alvin Moss]

I do not believe that the French recognize the Second Amendment. I do know this- if that had happened in Texas, the cell phone videos would have been pictures of a shootout, not a massacre. We'd have leveled the whole block to save it, if we had to. I hope that if the terrorists shoot up any delicatessens around here, they will spare Alfred's in Houston. They have a very fine German Chocolate cake, though they are Jews there.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Originally Posted by Prayer Warrior

Foxnews is the only news organization willing to uncover the true reasons behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo: Europe's lavish welfare state. As military experts reveal, Europe's ridiculously lavish welfare programs attracted dirtbags who don't want to work. Even people with a religion as ridiculous as Muslims are able to be someone competent when being blessed by God's favorite nation. Unfortunately, when you have so called "open hearted" and open handed elites, the average citizen gets screwed over.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/0...-the-us/202053

As Fox News also points out, the incompetent Obama administration is cowtowing to radical Muslims by neglecting to acknowledge that this is an Islamic attack

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...-paris-islamic

This man brings up an excellent point: Police are not militarized enough. We need to have heavily armed cops with automatic weapons patrolling the streets just so cops know that they're there. If you're one of the good guys you should have nothing to fear from our law enforcement officers. Another Fox News host also calls for more racial profiling. This is just what we need in order to cut down on terror.

In conclusion

1. Welfare attracts dirtbag terrorists who are too lazy to work
2. Obama cowtows to Muslim radicals
3. The police are not militarized enough
4. We need more racial profiling.
5. Europe's cops are even lazier and bigger wusses than Europe's citizens.

Finally, at 3.35 the blonde haired plain speaker says what we are all thinking: were these bad guys coloureds?

She rightly points out that we NEED to know the colour of the people involved before we can condemn them.

YIC

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Dr Laurence Niles

Finally, at 3.35 the blonde haired plain speaker says what we are all thinking: were these bad guys coloureds?

She rightly points out that we NEED to know the colour of the people involved before we can condemn them.

Amen, Dr Niles! Which is yet another reason why balaclavas* and the like should not be available on sale to the general public. (*I mean the hats, not the pastries.)

[Titus Templeton]

The French love their second amendment they already have.
That is that every French is allowed to wear a white flag.

[Prayer Warrior]

Originally Posted by Dr Laurence Niles

Finally, at 3.35 the blonde haired plain speaker says what we are all thinking: were these bad guys coloureds?

She rightly points out that we NEED to know the colour of the people involved before we can condemn them.

YIC

Great observation! It is just like when an American says "We need to bomb all Iraq" or "We should nuke all Muslims", or "We should avenge 9/11 by killing Muslims" they are freedom fighters, standing up to terrorists. When a Muslim says "We need to bomb USA" "We should kill all the Christians" or "We should avenge Osama/Muhammad by killing Americans" they are violent barbaric terrorists.

If they were Muslims killing Charlie on behalf of Muhammad, then it was a violent and despicable terrorist action. If they were doing it on behalf of Jesus however, I think we'd need to examine the matter more carefully. Thank God I was born into the correct religion and country.

[arthur frayn]

Originally Posted by Roland

I don´t think these people would have been able to defend their selves

When a frog joins his army, the first thing he gets issued is a white flag.