That’s what you get when a HuffPo editor asks an Atlantic editor questions on MSNBC. I’m surprised viewers’ television sets didn’t tip over to the left.

MSNBC Pundit Blames ‘Ease of Getting Guns’ for Brussels Bombing
Stein: “I guess that’s a bit of a surprise to us around the table because the city was on high alert owing to the arrest [of Salah Abdeslam] … why is Brussels and Belgium at large being the epicenter for this? What is it about that city that allows something like this to fester?”

Clemons: “I had wanted to ask him, ‘You know, why is it known that it’s so easy to access guns in Belgium than other of the major states in Europe, it’s something that everybody knows here, that there is a black market, that there is an ease of getting guns here. As compared to many other parts of Europe.'”

Admittedly, early reports claimed a few witnesses heard gunshots; likewise early reports claimed one or two “Kalashnikov rifles” were found on the scene (but not specifically linked to the terrorists). Now, firearms seem to have dropped out of the narrative altogether, with casualties inflicted solely by bombs. If any victim suffered a gunshot wound, the report hasn’t made it into any story I’ve found. Blaming firearms for this horrific bomb attack is typical victim disarmers dancing in the blood, gleeful over yet another invented excuse to ban defensive tools.

But that “ease of getting guns;” just how easy is it in Belgium to get a firearm?

Not very: “Belgium’s weapons law now places it among the group of countries that regard civilian firearm ownership as a restricted privilege rather than a basic, constitutionally protected right. The restrictive character of the Belgian gun law shows itself in the fact that access to weapons considered ill-suited for civilian use is restricted or even prohibited; that a ‘good cause’ for gun ownership is required; and that a series of checks on criminal record and mental fitness must be performed before an authorization can be issued.”

To own a firearm requires a license. To get a license, you have to provide proof that it is for an approved purpose (personal protection doesn’t count unless additional conditions exist). You undergo multiple background checks. You undergo a mental health examination. You have to pass knowledge and skill tests. The authorities can still decide you simply can’t have a firearm even if you pass all the checks.

If you get a license, you’re still limited in what you can own. Assault rifles? Right out; prohibited. That means the briefly alleged “Kalashnikov rifle(s)” were illegal, unlicensed.

An interesting side note: Current Belgian law with all its restrictions on firearms was prompted by a 2006 shooting in which the killer used a lever-action rifle, not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle. Belgian laws are considered to be more restrictive than required by the EU’s Firearms Directive 91/477.  While America has a Second Amendment protecting our rights, the EU has substituted 91/477, which requires member countries to impose draconian restrictions on civilian firearms/ammunition possession. Such restrictions happen to include pretty much any “Kalashnikov rifle.”

Clemons continued to babble, “[I]t’s something that everybody knows here, that there is a black market.”

Not really. At one time, Belgium was a source for certain types of old weapons, manufactured before 1895; roughly analogous to America’s classification of firearms manufactured before 1899 to be antiques not considered firearms (and there was some confusion as whether firearms designed before 1895, but of more modern manufacture were allowed). Such guns could be possessed without a license, and people would come to Belgium to buy them and take them back to their home countries, bypassing local restrictions. But years ago, Begium changed their law on such arms. The only unlicensed antiques allowed are thoroughly deactivated guns and those that fire black powder only; any gun that can handle smokeless powder must be licensed. Or sold in a black market that is, by definition, illegal.

Unless some time-traveler took the blueprints for a Kalashnikov back to 1894 and built an AK-47 that runs on black powder, the hypothetical “Kalashnikov rifle” in the Brussels attack was quite illegal. It would have been smuggled in, possibly sold in a market far blacker than Belgium’s old market for antiques.

Such a black market might even carry the makings of the bombs the murderers actually used.

Belgium’s “lax” laws on firearms — more restrictive than EU guidelines, and more so than what American victim disarmers claim they want here — didn’t stop terrorists hell-bent on blowing up innocent people. And we’ll never know if Belgium’s restrictions disarmed someone who might have saved a life or two.