A picture says a thousand words. Maybe this one elicits a thousand questions:
A foreigner uses your administration’s lax gun laws to purchase guns and then uses them against your citizens-so the first thing that comes to your weak mind is to take the guns away from your citizens?
Just how is it logical to disarm your citizens because a foreigner attacked a minority within your country? Your citizens were not involved in that gun violence. In fact, there has been no mass murder by your citizens for over 30 years.
Seems that this gun violence was more akin to a foreign invasive force than it is to native terrorism by gun wielding crazies.
Who is really at fault here?
Maybe you feel the heat from your own laxed administration and would like to deflect the blame from yourself?
Why do YOU allow the selling of guns to foreigners?
How does it make sense to allow guns to be sold to someone from a country that disallows the ownership of guns? They certainly wouldn’t be bringing those guns back to their home country, would they? So, what were they planning to do with those guns? Could it be that since they can’t take them home, they might use them in your own country-against your people?
Does it make a lot of sense to disarm your citizens, so that the next time a foreigner chooses to murder them, they will be completely vulnerable?
You own this! Don’t try to obfuscate it by turning your gun sights on your own people.
Or is the confiscation of the guns a pure knee jerk racist response? I say that because over the last ten, or maybe twenty or thirty years, Muslims have committed many mass murders against the citizens in many different nations and I have never heard of a Prime Minister or President of any of these nations ever say, “Okay every Muslim must turn in his guns, bomb making supplies, and driver’s license.”
This is the first time a European type has committed mass murder against Muslims that I can recall, and the immediate response is round ‘em up and if they don’t comply then to the concentration camps. Why are our Western leaders so quick to turn on us? On the Saudi payroll, perhaps?
As I noted above, crickets after the many mass murders by Muslims.
So the next thing that came into your head was that this was a great opportunity to look campy in a Muslim hijab?
Are you Muslim? No?
Are you sure?
Shouldn’t you dress in a manner that shows you are a Westerner, not a closet Muslim, and demonstrate that Westerners don’t tolerate the murdering of their citizens regardless of what religion those minorities are?
Shouldn’t you want to distinguish yourself from many Muslim countries where Christians and non-Muslims are continually terrorized and murdered?
Why would a female leader of a Christian Western nation be so giddy to be submissive to Muslim female protocol?
Is it female romanticism gone cuckoo? Ah, the sheik is so viral, I just want to knell trembling at his feet.
Or is it a tacit signal to Islamic bankrollers? Based on the governmental contortions in many countries regarding Islam, I begin to suspect that many western politicians have received generous donations from Arab royalty.
Are you showing solidarity with the Muslim minority, which you could not show by dressing in your normal fashion? Or are you just sending a confusing message, about who you are and what you really believe in?
Or is it just fun to dress up?
P.S. New Zealand, do you think this woman can actually make the necessary decisions to protect you in a major conflict or breakdown of the status quo? You are dreaming. You are a small country like Switzerland, and you have a rather large country to the north that is increasing its military presence year after year. I would suggest that you arm every citizen with an automatic weapon and train them how to use it- like Switzerland does. The status quo can diverge rather quickly.