Bill Clinton: If Clubgoers were Armed More People would have Died

The punk Islamic gunman was the only one responsible for the murder of 49 people this past weekend. He bought the guns, he cased the nightclub, and he pulled the trigger of the weapons. They did not fire themselves. Mateen used two guns, a Sig Sauer MCS rifle that is similar to most other rifles in that it fires bullets one at a time each time the trigger is pulled. It is called an assault weapon not because it is used by the military or has any special features that make it especially deadly, but because it has some “mean looking” design features and is painted matt black. He also used a Glock 9 millimeter pistol, which is the pistol used most widely by police departments world wide. Mateen passed a background check, and he bought the guns legally. He worked as an armed security guard, so it would be reasonable for him to have guns to do his job.

The failure was not in the background check or the type of gun Mateen used. It was in the politically correct government that called off a watch program on Mateen twice, and that demanded that surveillance of the mosque Mateen attended be discontinued because it was seen as profiling the Muslim congregation that attended services there.

Instead of looking for effective ways to prevent future Islamic terror attacks, the liberal crowd settles on disarming the law-abiding public as the best way to prevent future tragedies. Exhibit one is Bill Clinton, who weighed in with nonsensical anti-gun rhetoric.

Former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that more people would have died in the terrorist attack at a nightclub in Orlando over the weekend if club-goers had been armed and shot back at the lone gunman.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, the former president was asked to respond to Donald Trump’s claim that fewer people would have died at the club if they had firearms.“Did you see how dark it was?” Clinton said. “It’s likely that more people would have been killed.”

Clinton on Tuesday pushed for a ban on military-style assault weapons like the AR-15, arguing that gun deaths dropped sharply after he signed such a ban as president in 1994. That law expired in 2004.

The nightclub where Mateen chose his attack was a gun-free zone. No one was allowed to carry a weapon into the club, and contrary to Clinton's all-knowing assertion, it is likely Matten would have chosen a different target if he had known there would be others in the crowd who were armed and ready to take him out. And it would not have had to be many concealed weapon carriers, since he would not know who else was armed, only that others in the crowd had weapons.

The other assertion by Clinton is that because the club was dark Mateen would not have been seen. That is also laughable. The muzzle flash of his weapon would have been like a bulls-eye for other patrons to shoot at. To say that because the entire club was disarmed means that fewer people died is a statement so logic-free and idiotic that even liar Bill Clinton should be embarrassed to make that assertion, though the reality is that virtually nothing embarrasses that fool, then or now.

In the coming days, there will be more and more Democrats coming out and ignoring the fact that 49 people died because an insane theology decrees that everyone in the world should be killed if they do not convert to Islam and live according to Sharia. That is where the focus should be, along with doing whatever is possible to alleviate some of the suffering of the families of the dead and the survivors. That will not happen. Instead, there will be calls for confiscation or the banning of certain “scary” guns, and Obama will no doubt try to violate the Constitution and circumvent the Congress by spewing out illegal executive orders. We should not be surprised, it is what he does best. All of this to take advantage of the dead and the dying in order to fulfill their anti-gun agenda. They are disgusting and heartless creatures, following their tired script once again.




Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest