“Chanting ‘Tunisia is free! Terrorism out!’, they marched [in their thousands] to the Bardo Museum, the scene of an attack in which 21 tourists and a Tunisian died,” bbc.co.uk reports. “French President Francois Hollande and other world leaders attended a ceremony at the museum. Speaking at the museum, Tunisian President Beji Caid Essebsi paid tribute to his citizens’ defiance. ‘The Tunisian people proved today that they do not bow to terrorism, and that as one man and one woman, they defend the nation. When Tunisia is targeted, the whole nation stands as one.'” Politically, sure. Practically? Not so much. Any guesses where Tunisia stands in regards to the rate of legal firearms ownership (a damn good way to fight terrorists)? bustle.com has the answer . . .

Let’s compare Tunisia with the U.S. The rate of gun ownership in Tunisia is 0.1 per 100 residents. In the U.S., the rate is 90 per 100 residents — that’s 900 percent more guns than Tunisia. In terms of actual number of privately owned guns, Tunisia ranked 173 out of 178 countries. According to statistics listed by GunPolicy.org, a project of the University of Sydney, there are roughly 9,000 privately owned guns in Tunisia, both legally and illegally. The number of licensed firearm owners and registered firearms is 3,408. These numbers are miniscule given that the population of Tunisia is nearly 11 million.

Gun control paradise! Yes, well, the low rate of legal firearms ownership also makes Tunisia something of a soft target. Just sayin’. ‘Cause nobody in the Parisian or Tunisian demos seemed to mention it. Good thing they were protected by – wait for it – guns.

Demonstrators waved Tunisian flags and held up slogans of “Not Afraid” and “We Are Bardo” as they marched, surrounded by a heavy security presence.

“Terrorism is an international phenomenon, not a Tunisian one,” activist Ben Hazem told the BBC. “I think there should be solidarity and unity between us to fight terrorism.”

Some leftist political groups chose to boycott the rally. They object to the participation of an Islamist party, who they hold accountable for the rise of Islamic extremism in the country.

Tunisians held a landmark election in December that ushered in a new, largely secular government.

See? Now that’s funny! Only it’s not really, is it? Islamofascists don’t care about popular resistance – unless it’s armed. That is all.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

46 COMMENTS

  1. I’ve seen this play before. They jump up and down and scream about how tough they are and the second someone shows up and throws a rock, they scatter like cockroaches.

  2. That’s funny. All the civilian guns in the US haven’t stopped the US government from committing terrorist acts all over the world.

    • Yeah… Go away. SJWs aren’t welcome here. You clearly have no idea what a “terrorist act” is.

      • Oh, you mean “terrorism” isn’t a government manufactured neologism coined by propagandists trying to distinguish state violence from non-state violence, and to give government terrorism a veneer of legitimacy?

        Get educated on etymology, pwrserge. 🙂

        • “distinguish state violence from non-state violence, and to give government terrorism a veneer of legitimacy?”

          Incorrect. To an extent, yes, it is used by states to try an illegitimize non state actor violence, but it is commonly applied to recognized state actors as well, by other states and non state actors.

        • Ah, but the US State Department only uses the term “state terrorism” against governments it wishes to de-legitimatize, usually in preparation for an actual government terrorist act: an illegal invasion by the US armed forces to impose the will of the US government on another sovereign nation.

          What is TTAG’s stance of gun confiscation committed by the US armed forces against Iraqi civilians?

        • Try to stick to one topic at a time, but for your information, Iraqi civilians, last I checked, dictated by their own government were permitted one AK per household. Thats their law, it was not imposed by us.

          As for the topic at hand. Yes, of course the US State Department applies “terrorism” to actor’s in which it views as enemies. This does not mean that “terrorism” is a figment of US government creation, and that the US government is the only government with a “terror list”. Be it right or wrong.

        • Thanks for admitting that the mainstream context of “terrorist” is simply whomever the US government deems as its enemy, as opposed to a word with real meaning that can be objectively assessed on any person or state.

          By the way the US armed forces enforced an Iraqi gun control law passed by a puppet regime installed by the US government. Mmmm, delicious irony.

        • “neologism”

          back off, boys–this one went to college. we’re in WAY over our heads.

      • You only allow pro-2A people as long as they echo your politics verbatim? You would fit in more with MDA types. Free is free, and ST can be as SJW as he/she wants.

        • You have no idea what a SJW is do you? A pro-2A SJW is like a libertarian Iranian mullah. It’s a contradiction in terms.

        • You just recently learned what SJW means and throw it around at everything you see. Not to mention that you can’t even think critically about personal politics. Keep up with the “aren’t welcome here” mantra, that will win you many friends and allies.

      • The term is meaningless. In the last couple decades it has been applied to any and all actions that the government does not like. It has joined “racist” and “anti Semite” as nothing more than words to demonize an opponent.

    • Oh God you’re still here crying about that. What an unoriginal and predictable post Blaine, I thought you were more creative than that bro 🙂

        • Ah, you’re exactly like Jane Fonda, who famously stated she doesn’t read books or newspapers which she disagrees with politically.

          Thumbs up, broski.

        • Yeah that’s what I said. I said I didn’t read HuffPo. Or is that what I said? Reading comprehension much? Re read my statement and try again.

        • Yes we all know you’re the pro-American Jane Fonda, brosef.

          Wahhh! Cognitive dissonance! WAHHHHH!!!! 🙂

        • Says the guy who just conceded a major point (see above).

          I ain’t even mad brosee. 🙂

    • One could argue that the civilian gun ownership in the US has prevented terrorism against its citizens. A gun in Oklahoma doesn’t do anything for Iraq.
      I get your argument; the US government is bad and has a history of violence. But I submit that the US government is similar to most if not all other world powers throughout history. It was an understanding of history that the framers of the US constitution tried to impose partitions against the eventual slide toward tyranny, or terrorism against its own citizens. It is our opinion that the 2A is the last remaining deterrent against tyranny.

    • Oh it’s ok though, we are spreading democracy when we terrorize other nations. The bombs are free too, thanks to the good ol’ Federal Reserve.

  3. Quack. Quack. I am a sitting duck.
    Although I have heard that private owned guns for Israelis are rare.

  4. Citizens of any African or Middle Eastern country denouncing terrorism is a good thing.

    I care less about their gun control laws than I do that they took to the streets to disassociate themselves from the acts of a bunch of Islamofascists. They’re Ok in my book.

    • Have to agree that this demonstration is better than nothing and a step in the right direction.

      • Give ’em time. They’ll be out in the streets chanting “Death to America” soon enough. A leopard cannot change its spots.

        • Like the Iraqis who risked their lives reporting insurgent activity to us? Or who risked their lives by working for us (even in a menial capacity), and who we then abandoned? Like those people?

          Not everyone over there is an extremist. And we haven’t exactly done the ones who aren’t a lot of favors lately,

          Obama – the quintessential “Chicken Hawk”.

        • You should at least brush up on the history of the region. If anything, Tunisians (much like Algerians) are far more likely to chant “Death to France”.

    • Bingo. If you really want to put a dent in islamic terrorism, you have to make terrorism socially unacceptable in muslim communities. We can bitch about Tunisian gun laws all day long…eventually. Cross one bridge at a time.

  5. Many countries with no history of anything like a second amendment have no idea or basis in their law for the right for citizens to bear arms. Too bad, maybe some of these countries should review their constitution and add that. However, also notice that their flag contains a Muslim symbol so it appears there is not really a separation of church and state either. Too bad as this is another indication that they really are not “free”. Sharia Law is just another way for a small group of people to control the masses. But at least most of the women in the video are not wearing burkas so guess that is a plus compared to some of the backward Muslim countries in that area.

  6. 90 per 100 vs 0.1 per 100 is not a 900 percent difference, it is a 89,900 percent difference. (It is a 900 fold increase, though.)

  7. Time to sit back and pass the popcorn. By the end of the year, or middle of next year at worse, it will be the big Sunni VS Shia conflict. A four-plus way fight that the US, Israel, and other allies should stay right out of. And a good time for the Saudi pampered playboys to decide if this fight is worth the reward.

    • Someone is going to win that fight. And I don’t think they’re going to be content with ruling the Middle East. it’s about a global Caliphate,

      • The only ones who truly think that a Caliphate is realistic are guys like ISIS, but they’re also the ones least likely to win in that fight.

        All the major parties are states, though. Take Iran, for example. Much and more is made of their Islamism, but in truth they’re still a nation-state first and foremost, and their culture is in many ways hostile to the neighboring Muslim Arab states, and not just because of the Sunni/Shia division – it goes much earlier to the Arab conquest of Persia, and the subsumption of the Persian culture into the Arab Muslim one. So Iran, like most other nation-states, does want to be a strong state, and certainly bids for regional domination, but no-one other than a small minority of true religious fanatics there seriously considers the notion of a global Shia caliphate.

        For another example, take Saudis. Yes, they’re a state where Salafism is effectively the state religion. But the ruling monarchy is largely using that religion to solidify their rule; they don’t seriously believe in it, or want to wage a worldwide jihad to spread that rule throughout the globe. They also want regional dominance – or rather they want security, just enough to ensure that they can keep pumping oil and reaping all the profits – but they’re not jihadis.

        It’s clear that the next big dust-up in Middle East is going to be between Iran (who will use Shia everywhere as proxies) and Saudi Arabia (who will ally with all Sunni monarchies in the region), with Israel being a probable third party. But it will still be fundamentally a conflict between states, fought for the sake of realistic (i.e. regional) power and control; not for nebulous religious reasons.

    • Maybe someone should step in, now and then, on the loser’s side, let’s prolong it as long as possible, it can only be a good thing.

    • I’m not so interested in trying to get between the Sunnis vs. Shias. I am a lot LESS comfortable standing by watching either side commit genocide against minority Yazidis, Christians and Kurds.
      At a bear minimum, I would advocate supplying these unarmed victims munitions and other supplies so that they can defend themselves as best they can.
      The greatest sin – in my mind – of Western governments is depriving (or failing to supply) the means to an effective defense to those who are oppressed and have no means of asserting their rights against majorities or governments.

  8. Carrying a gun to defend yourself makes you a monster.
    Hiring somebody else to carry a gun and defend you is brave?
    But isnt that person carrying the gun also a monster?

    Is it that one degree of separation that makes it righteous in the eyes of the antis?

Comments are closed.