French Ambassador Attacks Trump

A

AAAintheBeltway

Offering up a double dish of stupid and offensive, the French Ambassador to the US reacted angrily to Donald Trump's observation that strict French gun control laws leave its citizens defenseless. I understand they have a Socialist governemnt and no doubt despise Trump, but shouldn't their ambassador stay out of domestic American politics?

The Washington Post offers up a surprisingly objective report:

BEAUMONT, Tex. -- Donald Trump says the tough gun control laws in Paris contributed to the high death toll during a series of terrorist attacks on Friday. The attacks, he added, also reveal the danger in allowing Syrian refugees into the country.
"You can say what you want, but if they had guns -- if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry -- it would have been a much, much different situation," Trump said to cheers during a political rally at an arena in southeast Texas on Saturday afternoon. "I hear it all the time, you know. You look at certain cities that have the highest violence, the highest problem with guns and shootings and killings -- Chicago is an example, toughest gun laws in the United States, nothing but problems. So our country better get smart because we're not smart right now."

By making that comment, Trump doubled down on a message he tweeted in January, following a smaller-scale terrorist attack: "Isn't it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?" As that dated tweet recirculated on Friday evening, the French ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud, tweeted at Trump: "This message is repugnant in its lack of any human decency. Vulture."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...contributed-to-tragedy/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b
 
How bout a big sign on the door which says "Guns Allowed Enter at Your Own Risk" and let's have a good old Friday night shoot out at the concert. Oh well, better than a massacre I guess.
 
Trump is an ignoramus. Citizens carrying handguns would likely have had little impact on the unfolding of events. These were all surprise attacks. The attack at the Carillion restaurant was blitzkrieg style with automatic gunfire and the gunmen immediately fleeing by car. Outside the soccer stadium was a suicide bomber. At the concert hall, even if someone had a handgun, he would have been facing gunmen with AK-47 rifles and suicide vests. He would have to have gotten up close to a gunman to shoot him. Perhaps an off-duty cop or a military veteran MIGHT have taken out one gunman before the other two would have emptied clips into him. And suppose the had been a sea change in the French culture some time ago and 1/2 of Parisian citizens were carrying guns. The terrorists would have planned and acted differently. They still would have found a way to kill dozens of people.

Trump just doesn't think. Or he assumes - quite correctly - that his supporters don't think.

France just isn't dealing with its radical elements properly. The only way to deal with a terrorist attack is to prevent it in the first place, not having citizens shoot it out with terrorists. Look at the US' handling of internal security following 9/11. NYC has very strict gun laws (Trump and his kids have carry permits). 3 guys with assault rifles could run hog wild before the police take them out. How many mass terrorist killings have there been in NYC since 9/11? Not one. That's because we put the radicals under intense surveillance, jailed them when we could, and deported several radical imams from Muslim communities.
 
Last edited:
globuli said:
Trump is an ignoramus. Citizens carrying handguns would likely have had little impact on the unfolding of events. These were all surprise attacks. The attack at the Carillion restaurant was blitzkrieg style with automatic gunfire and the gunmen immediately fleeing by car. Outside the soccer stadium was a suicide bomber. At the concert hall, even if someone had a handgun, he would have been facing gunmen with AK-47 rifles and suicide vests. He would have to have gotten up close to a gunman to shoot him. Perhaps an off-duty cop or a military veteran MIGHT have taken out one gunman before the other two would have emptied clips into him. And suppose the had been a sea change in the French culture some time ago and 1/2 of Parisian citizens were carrying guns. The terrorists would have planned and acted differently. They still would have found a way to kill dozens of people.

Trump just doesn't think. Or he assumes - quite correctly - that his supporters don't think.
More...

The alternative, of course, is all the unarmed just stand there like sheep awaiting slaughter with NO CHANCE AND NO HOPE. That IS preferable to heeding Trump.
 
Read my entire post. The alternative, Einstein, is to get these guys before they attack. You have the imagination and brains of a pile of Scat.
 
globuli said:
Read my entire post. The alternative, Einstein, is to get these guys before they attack. You have the imagination and brains of a pile of Scat.
More...

The alternative didn't quite go so well in Paris now did it? And who did they say was next? London, Washington and Moscow? Lets see how that goes.
 
globuli said:
Read my entire post. The alternative, Einstein, is to get these guys before they attack. You have the imagination and brains of a pile of Scat.
More...

We let these muslims ionto the country and we do not have the resources to follow them all around. You cannot just deport someone or arrest them because of suspicion. They have rights, thanks to idiot federal judges. Look at the Boston bombers. The Russians repeatedly warned us they were dangerous. We did nothing basically.

Prevention is a great diea but it ius not foolproof, not when our president can't wait to admit hundreds of thousands of potential terrorists without proper vetting.

Having a frearm is not total protection either, but if it is so useless, why do the police carry them?
 
That's an example of sophistry. My argument was that Trump was very wrong in his assertion that had France had different gun laws, then a very different outcome would have occurred in Paris. He is just feeding the lemmings the drivel they want to hear.

I never said guns are useless.

I think if Trump himself had been at any of the sites of attack, he would have grabbed the first person near him to use as a shield, even if he was packing.

Regarding the Boston attack, how would an armed populace have changed the outcome?
 
Boston would not have been changed at all. But it is an example of the limits of preventive attention to possible terrorists.

I am not saying having armed civilians would have changed anything. i am saying that if I am in that situation, I would prefer to have a weapon than be unarmed. Do you disagree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top