Home > Uncategorized > The Day After

The Day After

The nation continues to mourn over the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech yesterday. Like many of you, I have been watching and reading the coverage, still in shock over the extent of the carnage. As a former college professor I simply can’t begin to imagine what transpired on the Virginia Tech campus during the rampage. The university experience, especially in a rural area like VT, is supposedly idyllic and peaceful. Everybody just goes about their routine, oblivious to what’s happening in the outside world. And then suddenly the outside world comes to them. The Blame Game has already begun with college officials, but I’ll not comment until we know the whole story. Today should be about remembering the dead and thinking of their family and friends who wrestle with this tragedy.

But I hope the media pundits and talk show hosts stay away from two angles in the days and weeks to come. Let’s not make this tragedy about guns and gun control. You know that I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter and I’d hate to see gun opponents try to parlay this tragedy into political fodder. At the same time, nor do I want to see this because an immigration issue since the alleged shooter was South Korean and here on a visa.

Meanwhile, we’ll stick to our original programming schedule for Tuesday and Wednesday and see where things go. Tuesday at 5:30, for example, Pastor Ron Schmidt will appear to discuss his frustration with The Tribune for their recent coverage of the church. And Chris Arend appears Wednesday at 5 to educate us about author Scott Harris.

  1. The Ghost of Christmas Past
    April 17, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    I’m just… what is a good term here?…relieved that the shooter wasn’t Muslim. Could you imagine what kind of backlash against the Muslim community there would have been if the shooter had been Muslim? There ahve been other incidents regarding Muslims on college campuses, the NC Chapel Hill student that ran over a bunch of students with his SUV to protest the Iraq War comes to mind. We might have had calls to start deporting Muslims on visas if it had been a Muslim. Of course, it should go without saying that this is a tragedy of the first order and our thoughts and prayers go out to the grieving families of the victims. Does this incident call into question the amount of support services found our in our colleges?

  2. Anonymous
    April 17, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Dude, you are one sick puppy.

  3. Grieving in Los Osos
    April 17, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    My heart goes out to all the families who lost loved ones in this tragedy. How very sad.

  4. Dave Congalton
    April 17, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    Slight change of plans in terms of the schedule today. Dr. Larry Martinez starts us off at 3:15 with an analysis of role high technology played at Virginia Tech yesterday.

    Also Mike Brennler will draw on his years in law enforcement at 4:05 to comment.

    Lee Guelf has already requested time to appear this week to argue for gun control and I’m trying to reach someone locally who went to school at Virginia Tech. Stay tuned.

  5. The Ghost of Christmas Past
    April 17, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    What is sick about my observation?

  6. Lisa ---New Jersey
    April 17, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    This nightmare is horrible, and so sad. It really makes you realize that there isn’t any place that is safe. I can not even imagine the anquish that the loved ones of the victims are going through.

    On the news they keep mentioning that this gunman was a “loner” and that there possibly were tell tale signs…apparantly he had mental problems (oh, now there is a surprise)….how scary is that?

    They had a psychiatrist on The Today Show and he said, that this kid more than likely had real issues in his childhood/past.

    How can you identify these nuts before they commit such atrocities? They were showing all of the people that have done similar crazy things…and they are all races and nationalities…

  7. The Cynic of SLO
    April 17, 2007 at 11:26 pm

    I was hoping for a big news story like this shooting so the media will focus on the shooting and not Gonzales, that way he won’t resign until May. I pick a date in May for his resignation to win Dawn legg and Dave’s contest as to when Gonzales resigns. Thank god for the blood thristy media, this ought to keep them busy for atleast three weeks. And is true that this shooting was a Bush administation operation as Rosie O’Donnell claims.

  8. Steve
    April 18, 2007 at 12:09 am

    Speaking at the VT ceremony,the woman with the bleached hair was a making a mockery of the whole
    situation. She seemed very happy about her speech, raising her hands and cheering. Another reality challenged professor who missed the mark once again with her diversity pc bullshit

  9. Foothill Rhonda
    April 18, 2007 at 2:07 am

    I think that this shows that America needs to think outside the box and rid ourselves of the terrible weapons that are available to unstable people. Lets unite and make our country a safer place by outlawing these guns before another tragedy strikes. The shooter is a victim too since the authorities should have known he had these feelings and should have gotten him some help, as well as never allowing him to own automatic weaponry. The republican congress can be thanked for this loss of life by them not keeping the Clinton gun ban in place. The blood is on their hands!

  10. Anonymous
    April 18, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Lisa is right. No place is safe. Relax gun laws and finally give us the right to protect ourselves from the wackos! Teachers need to pack as well. As in Florida, when gun laws are realxed and more citizens carry them crime goes down. You may not like that but you can not refute the facts.
    As for the 32 dead and many more wounded, they were sitting ducks…sadly. Had they had a nice back up 380 with glasser bullets many less would have died and America would have a new hero! As it should be.

  11. the ghost of christmas past
    April 18, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    No law would have prevented this tragedy. If you had a hand gun ban all across America, I imagine this kid would have just gone on the internet and fashioned himself a suicide-bomber vest just like the Palestinians use and the death toll Would have been in the hundreds. Those guns did not kill those people; the mentally sick bastard that pulled the trigger did.

    Face it, America, the time has come, what with 9/11 and this shooting and the Amish school shooting, Columbine, etc, that YOU and only you can protect yourself. Americans have gotten complacent by trusting that laws, and cops and government will ride in on a white horse and rescue you from peril. Jack Bauer only exists on TV, not in real life. United 93 passengers rose up and saved hundreds if not thousands of lives by taking action with the sacrifice of their lives. If we want to prevent this from happening in the future, we should make it easier to obtain a handgun and a carry permit after attending a state certified gun safety and use course. Teachers should have the means to defend themselves and their classes. Martial arts self-defense classes should be commonplace. Rapes will go down because the intended “victim” will have the means and the training to defend herself. When the citizenry gets active in taking responsibility for their own safety and security, the sick and deranged and the criminal elements of our country will have a reason to think twice, and barring that, the body count will be less.

  12. Bob from San Luis
    April 18, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    The folly of those who advocate for more guns on the street is that the reality is not in agreement with your fantasy. A home where a gun is kept is 43 times more likely to kill a member of that household, or friend, than an intruder. Concealed permits have not made Texas any safer; then Governor Bush signed into law the right to carry a concealed weapon into church!; two years later he signed a bill mandating that churches had to post a sign pointing out that it was now illegal to carry a firearm into church. After his 1996 signing of a relaxed concealed carry permit law, Texas gun crimes went up. And to address the fantasy that a civilian carrying a concealed weapon could make a difference, consider the Texas courthouse shooting where a distraught man, carrying a Mac-10, starting shooting at his wife and son; law enforcement returned fire when a private citizen, Mark Wilson, joined in the shooting. Mr. Wilson, a former military man, operator of a shooting range and instructor, was carrying a Colt 45. He shot the assailant once and hit him in the torso; the assailant then turned at shot at Mr. Wilson. Wilson ducked behind a parked vehicle and then bounced back up shooting twice, striking the man twice in the torso. The gunman was wearing a bullet proof vest, walked over to the truck and shot and killed Mr. Wilson. If you think you would be a better shot than Mark Wilson was, you are truly deluded. Having more guns on the street makes more problems than it solves.

  13. criminals and guns
    April 18, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    Its all Bush’s fault. Great post Bob!

  14. AG Andy
    April 18, 2007 at 7:33 pm

    This is the first blog I have read all the comments. 13 are showing and the majority seem to be way off in there observations. Some are right on when it comes to knowing there is really no safe place in this world. Packing a gat isn’t any assurance your safe it only means you can protect yourself if you choose to. This life we all have is hanging by a thread. We all will die someday and unfortunatly sometimes crazed gunmen shorten our stay. Your life is like a vapor or a puff of smoke. Before you can blink it will be gone. Then what? What happens next? People believe in an eternal heaven but find it hard to fathom an eternal hell. Hell is real and I assure you that gunman who killed 32 people and then himself is suffering and is going to suffer there forever. Justice demands it. If God is just The gunman doing his time with Hitler, Stalin, Dillon Klebold and Eric Harris. Now where will you end up? Will you go with them or are you up for a better option and truly better company? For your sake I hope you make the right choice.

  15. Anonymous
    April 18, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    Bob, I’ll defend your right to own or not own a gun. But when you try to remove from me my ability to protect myself and the lives of my family members, you’re crossing the line.

    I’ve always wondered why those on the left that want to keep government out of their bedrooms, protect a woman’s right to choose and all sorts of other supposedly freedom-related issues are so quick to remove from a populace its fundamental right or self protection. The government can’t always protect you. We’ve seen it on 9/11, we’ve seen it after Katrina, and we just saw it again on Monday.

    It’s impossible to predict if a legally armed civilian would have saved the day, but when I think of those huddled masses cowering, trying to hold a door shut with no means of defense, it sickens me.

    As for your quotes about Mark Wilson, some of us would call him a hero. He stood up to the danger and did his best and died trying to save others. You, of course, would call him a fool.

    As for crime in Texas, give this a read: http://tinyurl.com/9ebb

  16. the ghost of christmas past
    April 18, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    Typical Bob: Spinning data to suit his leftist agenda. Let’s parse his prose for a sec and see where the fallacies of his arguements lie.

    1) The assailant had a MAC-10 automatic weapon. It fires a thousand rounds a minute and holds 30 rounds. I said “handgun” in my second piece. So from the start, the lunatic had more firepower and could fire faster than the cops or Mr. Wilson.

    2) The assailant had a vest on. Again, the assailants sick mind thought ahead and had an automatic weapon and body armor.

    3) By returning fire, Mr. Wilson provided valuable cover fire to those without a weapon to escape and distraction to the assailant to keep him from killing more innocent people.

    4) Mr. Wilson’s aim was fine. He hit the assailant three times. Your real issue is with the body armor. Without the body armor, Mr. Wilson would have killed the assailant or at least critically wounding him. Why aren’t you for banning body armor owned by civilians to keep assailants, like the one that killed Mr. Wilson, from getting them? That would be just as ridiculous as banning handguns to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

    5) The final point: Mr. Wilson displayed a level of courage and self-sacrifice that you will never be able to appreciate. That is why you feel his actions were foolish. You, and those like you, are all too content to be slaughtered waiting for the cavalry to arrive.

  17. Eric
    April 19, 2007 at 2:52 am


    It’s a definite immigration issue and much more. This animal was here on a visa and was deemed a mental by the courts in Virginia. Why was he not deported? Why does our government not inforce immigration laws?
    Better get a gun because OUR government from left to right cannot be counted on for much of anything but lining their pockets.

  18. Anonymous
    April 19, 2007 at 4:46 am

    more guns equal less crime and the libs hate that…
    quote all the stats ya want…I got 400 for your 1…ready?
    let’s go!

  19. Bob from San Luis
    April 19, 2007 at 5:09 am

    To the next to last anonymous and tgoCp: Please, please, point out anywhere in my last comment where I said Mr. Wilson was a fool, or acted foolishly; I did not say that, anywhere. Some would call Mr. Wilson a hero; I AGREE THAT HE ACTED HEROICALLY! The point I was trying to make that seems to lost here is that it is a fantasy, a myth, that any, average citizen who happens to carry a concealed weapon would be able to stop a gunman intent on killing as many people as possible. Mr. Wilson was, by all accords, an excellent marksman who practiced regularly and had the absolutely best chance of making a real difference on that fateful day. I will also agree that possibly his actions saved an untold number of other people from getting shot. In that incident, the gunman drove away and was only stopped when an officer shot him in the back of the head, some miles away from the initial attack.
    A ban on bulletproof vests was mentioned; I agree. A ban on certain types of ammunition; good. A ban on certain types of weapons; good. Please remember that the previous Republican led Congress allowed the Assault Weapon Ban to expire; many Sheriffs and Police Chiefs across the nation supported extending the A.W. ban.

  20. Marilyn
    April 19, 2007 at 6:20 am

    I would like to put my two cents (maybe more) in here. I do have first hand experience in accidental and deliberate gun shots and their aftermath and I can safely say that a large number of people who do own guns and who do have the opportunity to use them in life threatening situations do not use them appropriately. They end up killing innocent bystanders or the fallout of automatic weapons can hit people from a distance.

    I have also seen many kids shot accidentally when they get hold of a gun that is lying around at home or at a neighbor’s house. There are those who will say that people who own guns should be trained in using them properly. The reality is otherwise. Most people who own guns rarely use them in real life anyway and if they do not practice they cannot shoot properly. I have seen cops and military who do not know how to react in life and death situations. Many either freeze or they start shooting haphazardly. It is not easy to shoot properly or even aim right when the adrenaline is flowing. So, saying that people who own guns are better prepared to protect themselves than people who don’t is a statement that is not proven to be true.

    People who are bent on killing and who plan for such an event are usually successful and will adapt their methods to their end.

    Many people are NOT responsible gun owners. The number of child casualties from accidental deaths attests to that. Law abiding does not imply safe gun handling or good parenting.

    At the same time, many gun owners who do try to use guns to protect themselves cannot get to them really, unless they want to carry them on their person 24 hours a day, but then, what kind of a life would that be?

    People do and should have the right to protect themselves. They have the right to use reasonable force in situations of immediate danger. The question to ask is: what are reasonable force and reasonable protection and how do we reconcile the rights of the individual with the rights of the society? Both are important.

    I personally vote for sling shots and poisoned darts. On the other hand maybe some people would prefer RPGs and tanks. How about hand grenades? I mean where do we stop?

    The best option, in my opinion, is prevention. However, we also have to realize that despite extreme gun control or all-out gun ownership, people will still die from violence. One extreme or the other will not prevent those intent on killing from doing their deed. People who are desperate and who make the decision to die in the process will have a higher chance of inflicting more damage.

    Cho should have received help from the school system and the authorities that identified his problems in the first place. As a legal resident of this country whose family is a taxpaying entity, he should have received the help he needed when the obvious warning signs were there over the years. Our prisons and mental hospitals are full of people like Mr. Cho. Mentally ill people who are undergoing a breakdown of a psychotic episode will tend to do one violent thing.

    I would also remind people of the other kind of mass killers, the serial killers, who may not use guns and shoot tens of people in the span of two hours, but who have many more victims, hundreds sometimes, before they are ever caught (and if they are caught).

    The media is creating such a hype around this tragic event and is playing all the angles for profit. As long as the bottom line is what is important, the health and well-being of the likes of Mr. Cho and his victims will continue to be compromised.

    The question to ask is: why do we not hear about troubled people before they commit their crimes? Why do we not notice them before their ultimate act? Could it be their final attempt at getting attention in a world that does not value them as a human being?

    But, unfortunately, mentally ill and poor people are not newsworthy until they commit their final act and, then, it is all the *stars* of news entertainment scrambling to be in the limelight.

    Journalism is supposed to be about truth, justice, and investigation, not about selling information and looking spiffy in front of the camera. You have all kinds of journalists playing psychiatrist on the air when they have no business doing that. They start projecting and insinuating what could happen “if.”

    But, journalism and justice are a noble tradition that have all but disappeared in a society that values violence because it is power and because it sells.

    Finally, the Constitution does recognize the rights of militias to organize and carry arms. This does not automatically translate to the individual. Unfortunately, in a powerful state, individuals have no physical power to speak of. Individuals will always lose in the face of overwhelming force and the aggressor is usually overwhelming. There is no way any of us can outrun an automatic weapon, a tank, or an air bomber. The other stuff, the day to day crime, remains a rare occurrence in most people’s lives (unless you live in a REAL war zone).

  21. Bob from San Luis
    April 19, 2007 at 6:28 am

    anonymous #3: I went to your link and read the data; here is a link where I got my statistics. I will admit that my data is old and I should have looked for more data. I stand by my assertion that more guns do not make a safer society, no matter what the statistics in Texas may or may not prove. Gun rights advocates like to paint a picture of how when criminals don’t know who might have a gun, legally or not, how those criminals might behave differently than if they think that no one else has a weapon. The other point usually made is that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and that other nations are wrong to restrict gun ownership. Once again, the facts do not seam to bare that out. Link here to a three page p.d.f. that refutes many of the assertions being made by those who want to see the Washington D.C. ban on firearm ownership lifted. Please read the links.

  22. Anonymous
    April 19, 2007 at 1:07 pm

    The bottom line is that the only person with a gun in the “gun free” zone of Virginia Tech was the sick son of bitch that killed 33 people. Proves the NRA’s and pro-gun people’s point right there.

    Case closed!

  23. Steve
    April 19, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Marilyn’s diatribe makes Cho’s look resonable.
    Let’s be pc here,and just say the young college studenthad “issues”
    Everyone should feel better now.

  24. Lisa ---New Jersey
    April 19, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    I don’t care if guns are legal or not…if some nut wants to get one he will….we are not safe anywhere…and that is really scary.

    What is super unsettling is that copy cats are now going to be scheming and plotting god knows what. Showing all of his pictures and the manifesto is so upsetting. I can’t imagine what the victims families are going through…I keep crying when they show the victims and telling their stories on the various news programs. One of the young men that was injured lives 5 miles from me in Southern New Jersey, he is a senior, his jaw is schattered and he is in critical condition.

    I do not know if we will ever find a way to prevent these massacres from happening. You just have to carry on with life as normal, otherwise you would spend your life in a fetal position in bed with the covers pulled over your head.

    I do have compassion and feel really bad for the murders’s family. His sister attends either Princeton or Harvard (I heard both), and he was attending a very good college…..amazing, anyone can be a wack-o…..you never know.

  25. the ghost of christmas past
    April 19, 2007 at 7:08 pm

    Lisa, you are exactly right. This is unsettling that any whackjob can get a gun and do their acts of evil on you anywhere they put their mind too. That is why we Americans need to start taking responsibility for our own personal self-defence and get some training. If you are waiting for a Good Samaritan or a cop to save you when things get bad, you are lost or dead. Women: if you have not got self-defense training under your belt, yo uwill be a rape victim if a rapist wants to rape you. Marilyn, the best way to prevent rape is to be trained to act if a rapist assaults you, plain and simple. No other thing will prevent that rape from occurring. Americans everywhere need to stop relying on the “kindness of strangers” and start looking at themselves as whether they are a hard or soft target. Take some onus for your own well-being for Christ’s sake! The more training and awareness people have the fewer people will be victims of this type of domestic terrorism. Laws won’t help you, cops won’t help you, by-standers won’t help you… not even God will help you if some sick son of a bitch is coming at you will evil and malice in their hearts. You and only you will have the ability to save you in those situations, if you choose to act and prepare.

  26. Anonymous
    April 19, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    I just want to congratulate our Armed Forces for the swift and decisive victory of our bombing campaign against Iran that Seymore Butts said was going to take place on Easter. That bombing campaign is going so well that the mainstream media has chosen to not report on it, what with the VA Tech tragedy occupying every broadcast minute. Again, hats off to our military for bombing the crap out of the Iranians. Seymore Butts is a sage and a profit the way he predicts these things.

  27. Anonymous
    April 19, 2007 at 10:48 pm

    Welcome to the Dawn Legg Show! Nuff said.

  28. Anonymous
    April 20, 2007 at 2:08 am

    Don’t be next! No one will protect you!
    Buy a gun, learn how to use it and protect yourself and your family.
    Best bet is a small .380 6 shot clip with glasser bullets. Safe if you miss deadly if you hit your target.

  29. Anonymous
    April 20, 2007 at 2:22 am

    I find it hard to consider the shooter’s comments about the have and have-nots….out of state tuition and room and board at V.Tech. are about $26,000.00 per year…check it out:

  30. Bob from San Luis
    April 20, 2007 at 3:33 am

    tgoCp: Attending self defense courses are a good idea, but the training itself is no guarantee of never being a victim. Part of any self defense training is the cultivation of an awareness of your surroundings and any potentially bad situations that you can avoid. The best self defense training experience you can have is never having to need to defend yourself.
    As for the best “weapon” for home defense, again, the best result is never having to need to use a weapon, be it knife, axe, or firearm. If you still feel the need to have a firearm in your home as a defensive weapon, I’ll wager that if you ask a hundred law enforcement officers, the overwhelming majority would recommend a shotgun over a handgun, for many reasons. A handgun is hard to aim accurately, a shotgun is simply pointed. A handgun is easy for a small child to lift and use, a shotgun is heavy and almost impossible to “pump” a shell into the chamber for a child. If you miss shooting your assailant with a handgun with regular ammunition, the bullet can travel through your interior walls, exterior walls and the walls of any close buildings, potentially striking and killing others, a shotgun blast dissipates very rapidly and usually will not travel very far. And a final bonus of the shotgun, ANY intruder in your house will have the hairs on the back of their neck freeze when they hear a shotgun being pumped. But how about making sure your home is not an easy target for an intruder? Strong locks on your doors, curtains drawn so that no one can see in, shrubs trimmed back so that there are no hiding places, and have some lighting outside at night. A huge majority of people do not need to have a weapon in their home; if you feel you do, please remember that a gun in the home has the effect of increasing the risk of a forty-three percent chance of someone in the house being wounded or hurt; a relative, a neighbor, your child. The risk of someone committing suicide rises dramatically if a gun is available as well. Think about the consequences; be careful.

  31. Anonymous
    April 20, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Bob said:
    “please remember that a gun in the home has the effect of increasing the risk of a forty-three percent chance of someone in the house being wounded or hurt”

    What this flaming lib left out was that having and knowing how to use a gun increases the chances that an invader’s chances of leaving your home dead to 100%

    Don’t dial 911! just point aim and click! Another slime ball turned to worm food, you become a local hero, and the bad guys get a wake up call that citizens will no longer tollerate their crimes.

    Buy a gun, learn how to use it, and protect yourself. Bottom line is this…It’s up to you and only you!

    Criminals don’t want and won’t sit around in a “feelings sharing” session while you all try to reach a consensus for peace.

    Shoot em! Kill em! and microwave some popcorn while they haul off his dead limp body.

  32. Wilson
    April 20, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    David when Donn Leg is on next week I think it would be cool to use “San Francisco” by Scott McKenzie as her personal bumper music.
    I am getting concerned that she’s getting a little long in the tooth,because it took nearly 2 minutes airtime before she pinned the psycho killer at VT on Bush.

  33. the ghost of christmas past
    April 20, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    I echo Bob’s call for everyone to go to their nearest Wal-Mart or Big 5 (where they are readily available for sale) and get a shotgun, preferably a pump action shotgun and better to make it a 12 gauge with the better stopping power. Way to go, Bob. It’s about time that you and I agree on something. So don’t hesitate, act now!! Follow Bob’s lead and protect yourself and your family buy purchasing a shotgun.

    Wow, I have to say I’m surprised by Bob’s comments. Bob, are you sure you’re a liberal? No matter. Go get that shotgun today so that the criminals and the criminally insane will no longer be able to terrorize law-abiding citizens. Again, way to go, Bob!!!

  34. Bob from San Luis
    April 21, 2007 at 3:16 am

    tgoCp: You again read what you wanted to read: I didn’t say go buy a shotgun; what I was trying to point out is that if you really feel the need to have firearm in your home to feel protected, please don’t purchase a handgun, they are inherently unsafe as all statistics indicate. You can protect yourself from a potential intruder by making your home or apartment as uninviting as possible. So please don’t think that I am advocating that everyone rush out to buy a shotgun- but if you do, don’t buy it at Wal-Mart, please. Yes, I am a liberal.

  35. Anonymous
    April 21, 2007 at 5:10 am

    Hmmm, anyone remember Champ Massey?

  36. Anonymous
    April 21, 2007 at 5:22 am

    No, who is that?

  37. Anonymous
    April 21, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    He’s Bob’s counterpoint to the coldblooded mass murderer Cho.

  38. Anonymous
    April 21, 2007 at 11:56 pm

    Champ Massey owned a used car dealership and carried a handgun for protection, unfortunately he blew a hole through his chest while zipping up the gun case one afternoon.

  39. Bob from San Luis
    April 22, 2007 at 1:45 am

    Getting back to the original topic of this thread; is there anybody who thinks that NBC and the Tribune did the “right” thing in airing the killer’s video and printing the pictures on the front page? Is it conceivable that some other twisted individual might try to “top” the carnage carried out by the VT killer? This is so desperately sad; the young man was crying out for help and should not have been able to arm himself as he did. The expired Assault Weapons Ban apparently had a provision that outlawed the clips that hold the ammunition that could hold more than 8 or 9 bullets; but the entire ban was allowed to expire. We will never know if having clips with only smaller amounts in them would have saved a life or two. Listening to Dave’s show on Friday I was struck by a Fox News break where they identified a dealer who apparently sold a weapon to the killer; the dealer did not sound remorseful at all, and Fox even gave the guy’s website- that is sick to me.

  40. the ghost of christmas past
    April 22, 2007 at 5:24 am

    Bob, you are so full of shit. the expire weapons ban had nothign to do with Cho arming himself. The reason why he was willing to arm himself was that the laws of Virginia prevented the school from acting on Cho’s well known mental instability. Because liberals are after the crazy vote, as well as the criminal and the illegal alien vote, they have insulated the crazy from public scrutny or mandated help to protect the crazy people’s “privacy” and to not stigmatize them. The school was helpless to stop him, as they have said. And don’t give me the expired gun laws bullshit. Even if guns never existed, Cho would have found another way. Cho was full of evil. He would have built a suicide bomb vest or even have began slashing people with swords. He was f*&king nuts and since our precious laws were powerless to stop him, Cho was a loose cannon and people were going to die. It is your misplaced faith in legislation to prevent crime, which it does NOT prevent crime, that led to these deaths, Bob. While you are not personally responsible, Bob, those in Virginia that believe as you do are responsible for every one of those deaths.

    Yes, there should be a nation wide campaign against NBC’s sponsor for NBC and MSNBC showing the video, just as CNN should be boycotted for showing the insurgent sniper killing one of our soldiers on video.

  41. Bob from San Luis
    April 22, 2007 at 7:09 am

    tgoCp: Wow. You really do see what you want to see when you read someone else’s words. When I mentioned the expired A.W. ban, I was pointing out how the clips that he had for his Glock were illegal, until the last Congress let the ban expire. Where did I say that the ban would have prevented him from what he did? I didn’t say that; you are being willfully ignorant. You, however, said: “The reason why he was willing to arm himself was that the laws of Virginia prevented the school from acting on Cho’s well known mental instability. ” Excuse me? willing to arm himself? Once again, you are being willfully ignorant. The reason he was able to arm himself is that there was nothing to stop a licensed dealer from selling him the weapons. There needs to be more of a background check performed, and, people who have had a history of mental health issues should not be eligible to purchase handguns. I do agree that the schools should be able to isolate and remove individuals who have issues that could escalate into a potential for harm to others.
    As for liberals going after the crazy vote, now you’re just being stupid.
    Criminal laws are not designed to protect; they are designed to punish. You are right in that if someone really wants to harm others, they usually can find a way to do so; the laws that regulate access to weapons is designed to protect in that those who have a history of doing harm (convicted criminals) are denied legal access to firearms. Legislation that would require those with a history of mental issues would also serve to protect society by preventing people who may be unstable from arming themselves with firearms. Could the young man have purchased or built some-sort of bomb or bomb-vest? Of course, but he didn’t. Could he have used a sword? Sure, but to be truly effective (as sick as that sounds) one would have to learn to use a sword. You don’t just pick one up and flail around; sword use takes skill. So, why did this young man use firearms? Because he could get them, because he could load them with 15 shot clips making him more lethal, he was able to do the damage he did. The shame is, it could have been prevented; not just by legislation limiting his ability to purchase his weapons, but also by him getting the help he needed, and by the school being able to act upon his warning signs of disturbing behavior.
    I know that I will not be able to reason with you, so go ahead and try to twist my words some more, but I am done with you for now.

  42. wilson
    April 22, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    I’m on Choverload

  43. Anonymous
    April 22, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Our gun laws are fine just as they are! Who caused this killing spree was the liberal activist judge who refused to institutionalize this freak when he had the chance!
    Don’t change gun laws…fire these limp wristed liberal judges and replac them with men that are not afraid to do the right thing.
    But as it stands now…You are the ONLY one that can protect yourself. But a gun, learn how to use it…and point and click it fearlessly at freaks like this!
    You may or may not get a medal but you will sleep better.
    2 things we learned from this:
    1) buy a gun
    2) fire activist liberal judges
    All can be “right” again with our great nation when we get the pussies off the bench and out of office.

  44. Anonymous
    April 22, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

    1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
    2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
    3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
    4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
    5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
    6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
    7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
    8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
    9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense — give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
    10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
    11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
    12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
    13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
    14. These phrases,” right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumeration’s herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
    15. We don’t need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
    16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
    17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles,” because they are military weapons.
    18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
    19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
    20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
    21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
    22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
    23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
    24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
    25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
    26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
    27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
    28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
    29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
    30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
    31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
    32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
    33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
    34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
    35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
    36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
    37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but “civilians” do not.
    38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
    39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
    40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands,” they don’t mean you. Really.

  45. Anonymous
    April 22, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    The Islamic militant group Hamas urged Palestinians to ratchet up attacks against Israel on Sunday.

  46. Anonymous
    April 22, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    Bottom line…if you have a “pair” buy a gun and learn how to use it!
    If you are a radical liberal lefty, then don’t buy guns.
    It’s really pretty simple.
    Enfourse current laws…fire pussy judges and polititions.
    There is no part of our American heritage that does not include guns as one of the ways we acheived it. Beating crime is no exception.
    If you want to lower crime and rape and assault, then every woman should own and carry and know how to use guns. Pepper spray only pisses the criminals off and they attack much more agreesivly.
    So ladies! But a spurless .38 caliber revolver and learn how to use it, persue your personal license to carry a concealed weapon and do it! Then watch crime drop!
    Students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on their campus. The wacko killings won’t stop, but fewer innocent people will be killed.
    “If” you are limp wristed liberal and do not believe in this…befreind at least one conservative so you can be protected from the wackaloons that the activist judges won’t throw the book at!
    Remeber…a .38 2″ barrel spurless (hiddden trigger so it won’t get stuck in your purse or pocket) and buy “Glasser” bullets. They wont go through sheet rock but no human has lived from a torso shot from a glasser. It releases hundreds of small steel fragments tearing all the internal organs and blood vessels yet totally safe if you miss. Glasser bullets are used by all air marshals on planes and all prison gaurds…safe but deadly.
    The police will not protect you! Wise up to that! In a real crisis you are on your own!

  47. the ghost of christmas past
    April 22, 2007 at 5:43 pm

    I’m twisting your words!?!? Well, you, my friend, you totally ignore my words. I state that you ignore the unrestrained evil of Cho and that he would have used a bomb or a sword to wreck his havoc. Your response is to toatlly ignore Cho’s evil and the carnage that was destined to happen and focus instead on the amount of training and skill it would take to weld a sword. You are the moron here. You agree with me that laws don’t protect they punish but that is after you cite that the expired assault weapons ban would hav prevented Cho from getting magazines (that is what the clip is really called) that hold 15 rounds which is the smae number of rounds that a soldier in Iraq has in one of his 9mm magazines. Here’s a news flash: magazines that hold few rounds just requires more reloads to be as effective. The Assault Weapons Ban is only effective in the hapless minds of liberals who know nothing about what they speak about. How many handguns have you ever fired, Bob? I’m guessing that the answer to that is ZERO. Yes, better, more well thought out laws would assist cops in protecting us, but they would have done nothing to stop or even deter Cho’s vile evil and hatred. You’re throguh with me because I twist your words? Well, I’m done with you because you are a moron that only knows what he reads from people who he already agrees with and has ZERo life experience to back up anything he speaks about.

    Read anonyymous’ “40 reasons to support gun control” and learn something important for a change.

  48. Marilyn
    April 22, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Are there any reliable statistics that show:

    1- Of all those people who actually own weapons, how many used them for protection versus how many used them in the commission of crimes, inside and outside the family, including accidental shootings?

    2- Of all the people who do own guns and who actually GOT TO USE THEM in SELF DEFENSE, how successful were they in defending themselves?

    3- Of all those people who actually fired a gun in the presence of other people, how many innocent lives were lost or wounded in the process?

    England is a country that does not encourage gun ownership, however, it is a very violent society and suffers from a lot of crime. However, percentage wise it remains lower than we are in people killed or injured because the British use less destructive means in committing their murders.

    Owning or not owning guns will not make people less criminal. What happens when you have too many guns lying around, certain people will find the excuse to use them in situations that could be handled without a gun. In addition, they inflict many more deaths per incident and tend to escalate into other incidents and cause innocent loss of life.

    All those patriots and gun hoarders out there, remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? Why should anything with that degree of fire power have been stored anywhere in anyone’s basement and why should the authorities have used such deadly force also?

    It is all about control and power and guns provide more of it and those who still live with the Daniel Boone mentality continue to believe they live in some frontier vast expanse of a wilderness and they can protect themselves.

    We do not live in frontier days any more. What is needed is more political activism to protect all people, especially the “little guy” who will never have the means to defend themselves. That is done by following just laws and political involvement in advocating for poor and disenfranchised families and small businesses, not by owning more guns.

    Guns never provided justice or a peaceful life; what they have done is occasionally provided a form of revenge, but more frequently murder and mayhem.

  49. Anonymous
    April 22, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    I’m sure the murder victims in England are happy to die knowing they were murdered with less violent methods than those murdered in the US. Marilyn, do you even THINK before you type this stuff?

    The research is out there to show that guns reduce crime. Spend a few minutes with Google. I won’t waste my time researching it for you, as you won’t believe it anyway, no matter what the source.

    This pussification of America has got to stop.

  50. Joe Stalin
    April 22, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    I agree with Bob. Take guns away and let the government protect all.

  51. pol pot
    April 22, 2007 at 7:13 pm

    Amazingly, I agree with Joe!

  52. Anonymous
    April 22, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Marilyn…It’s really simple sweetheart! Don’t buy a gun…be as politically active as you want.
    My constitution guarantees me the right to a gun…and I have excersized my right.
    It’s very acceptable for you to cry out with your picket sign…and not to buy a gun.
    But make no mistake…when the fit hits the shan don’t come knocking at my door for food and water because yours was ripped off by the wackos you want to smoke the peace pipe with!
    Protest all you want…as for me and millions of other brave and wise Americans…we are “Locked and Loaded”
    bring on anarchy! I’m ready! Food, water, and bullets.

    ps: when they blow your brains out can I use your picket sign to BBQ my dead cow?

  53. Islam out of the USA
    April 22, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    I tend to agree with anon…
    Americans must act now!
    and no Muslim should be allowed to own a gun!

  54. Marilyn
    April 22, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    I am not against gun ownership within reason. My point was guns will not solve the problems that this post tried to address. If they did, why are people still killing each other? People do own guns in this country in large numbers but it seems such gun ownership did not prevent the likes of Bin Laden, or McVeigh, or the Hillside stalker, or the countless child rapists and murderers out there from killing. It certainly did not protect Koresh and his group although they were armed to the teeth.

    Also, the fight from now own will not be with the “terrorists.” It will be corporate government versus everyone else. We have not felt the impact in this country yet that people across the globe (who by the way own guns in many situations) are facing.

    Yes, people should protect themselves but that is neither accomplished with peace signs (that is not the political advocacy I was talking about), nor with outright violence. It can be done to a certain degree with political pressure through economic boycott and a conscious effort not to subsidize corporations that encourage killing. Otherwise, all efforts are like blowing in the wind.

    So, if people want to live their lives waiting for that day when some “terrorist” is going to invade their dinky little town, I say go for it.

    The first 26 years of my life I saw more war and violence than most people on this blog will see in 100 lifetimes and I can assure you, guns never protected people in most situations. Those who will attack you will far outnumber you and will have the advantage of preparation, unless people are talking about all out war or a civil war type scenario. But then, everyone is in deep trouble and I speak from experience.

    Gone are the days when an M-16 could act as protection. When bombs go off, how is a gun going to protect you when the bomber is suicidal, or miles away, or operating using bunker busters with the help of satellites?

    Yesterday, people were afraid of the Communists, then the Germans, then the Japanese, then the Communists and, now that Communism is dead (but let’s not forget China, the new kid on the block), we have the new bogey man, the “Islamic” terrorists.

    Meanwhile, soldiers and civilians are killed for the benefit of those in power.

    That fact that people are buying guns in itself supports the same system that oppresses average people.

    Most people will never even have a conversation with a “Muslim” let alone a “terrorist.” 9-11 and Oklahoma City, and even the Virginia shootings remain a rare event and, if anyone can tell me realistically how any of those 3 particular events could have been prevented by stocking up on guns, please do not be shy.

  55. Anonymous
    April 23, 2007 at 12:25 am

    “Islamic” terrorism is not a boogeyman, as Marilyn might try to convince us, but a very real and present threat to our nation that Mecca Marilyn (still trying to find an apologist/sympathiser handle that fits) wishes us to ignore. I’m not worried about the Cho’s of the world because they are so few in number and usually just kill themselves instead of others. But when you have organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah that raise their children to be suicide bombers, that threat is real. Marilyn wishes us to ignore the man behind the curtain, but that man back there has a bomb vest on and will kill us all for not being Muslim.

  56. Bob from San Luis
    April 23, 2007 at 4:18 am

    Wow! I have had an epiphany; more guns are the answer. I don’t know what I was thinking; everyone should go out right now and arm yourself with the most powerful handgun you can afford. Carry it with you at all times (except at airports, federal, state, and county buildings- those pinkos). Permits? We don’t need no stink’n permits, we have to protect ourselves. Of course, we have to be careful, can’t let any of those people carry a firearm; they would want to do us harm. But that’s okay, some white guy somewhere will decide who can have a handgun and who can’t, and if you are not white, too bad. You will have to train your spouse and children, because they will need to be safe also. There are many models of small handguns that children and smaller adults could wield very easily; just think of it, we could arm the entire population (at least the whites, that is). More people committing suicide because they have an easier method, too bad. More accidents because many do not understand how a safety works, too bad. More murders because a simple argument escaltes to gun violence, too bad. I mean, how safe will you feel walking into a bar to relax for awhile knowing that most everyone there is packing? Most people who frequent bars never get into arguments, do they? The police will really appreciate having an armed population to help them when a bad situation arises, so long as the police don’t shoot the wrong people, or bystanders who join in the melee don’t shoot the police by mistake. Oh, and if innocent bystanders get shot by mistake, too bad again for them being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


    We tried that for awhile; that was the wild west- that worked out really well, didn’t it?

  57. Anonymous
    April 23, 2007 at 5:10 am

    Must of worked out well… we’re still here.

  58. new tone of SLO
    April 23, 2007 at 5:23 am


    Sorry but the MAGAZINES that nutcase in Virginia bought were 10 round Magazines (not clips), legal even under the weapons ban that was in effect. I am waiting to see how many gun laws were violated by this person. Being a former law enforcement officer in Virginia, I know that it is an instant background check state. I am wondering why it was not indicated on the IBC that he was committed to a mental institution? That should have been reported to the authorities, and thus would have prevented this guy from getting a legal gun at least. I wonder if it has anything to do with the law forbidding colleges from expelling mental cases that the liberal governors since Allen have signed into law?

    What would people be discussing had this man made some explosive vests and worn them to a football game? If an evil person wants to kill, I would like for people to have the opportunity to defend themselves. Being in a gun free zone, all non-criminals were obligated to be defenseless during this gun attack.

    Bob, don’t worry so much about the possessing of a gun to increase the risk of suicide. If a person is interested in suicide, there are so many ways to do it I doubt a gun will change the fact. I gun makes a harsher statement when that selfish person pulls the trigger and causes a bloody mess for the people they are trying to punish by then killing themselves. They can much cleaner and easier kill themselves by driving to a remote spot, hooking a hose up to the exhaust of their car and into their car window, and listening to Santa Maria bill as they fall asleep never to wake up again. The having of a gun will not change it. People even kill themselves in a jail, naked, and under 15 min checks.

    I am just so sad for the families of the shooters victims, and I pray that our country would come together and try and curtail these senseless acts of violence.

  59. NewsstandGreg
    April 23, 2007 at 6:47 am


    How did this guy Cho blast away your entire week of blogging?

    Hope to read your latest entry tomorrow … by the way, do you have a pool for the “Gonzales Resignation” date?


  60. uber lib
    April 23, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    The people Cho killed should of had the ACLU on speed dial.

  61. Anonymous
    April 23, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    By Ted Nugent
    Special to CNN

    WACO, Texas (CNN) — Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby’s Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

    Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I’ve about had enough of it.

    Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

    A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

    At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

    More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

    My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby’s Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden “feel good” politics.

    She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

    No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a “cult of agriculture fertilizer” following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh’s heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted “steak knife control” as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

    Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

    Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

    Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law. Feel better yet? Didn’t think so.

    Who doesn’t get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

    I’ll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that’s who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to “feel good” is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

    Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children’s school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

  62. Anonymous
    April 24, 2007 at 4:24 am

    Please do not delete…because I really want an answer…

    Why does marilyn stay in America if she hates it so much?

    no rambling! I want an answer!

    a muslim terrorist sympathizer that hates all America stands for…yet still feeds at the public trough cashing paychecks every 2 weeks. Really! I just don’t get it?

  63. Marilyn
    April 24, 2007 at 6:16 am

    To the Last Anonymous,

    I’ll give you MY answer:

    I cash my cheques once a month not every two weeks.

    I would explain to you why, but I am afraid that may be too complicated for you to grasp, so I will let it go for now.

    I could also tell you how much I make an hour, but being the caring civil servant nurse I am, I will not do that to avoid you having a coronary.

    See, even a “Muslim terrorist sympathizer” can have a heart and care for those whose self esteem is lower than Hades.

    I assume you know what Hades is? If you don’t, I would be happy to explain it to you, but not tonight because I still have an article to write before I go to bed and I still have to get up in the morning and go “feed at the public trough” with the rest of the herd.

  64. america
    April 24, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    got to give marilyn credit.she’s dedicated to her cause and religon.muslims using the united states laws and freedoms as tools is very smart and presents multiple problems for the good guys.

  65. Joseph Goebbles
    April 24, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    Where is your respect for the First Amendment now, Dave “the blog censor” Congalton?

    I want you to write on your blog 100 times: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt Marilyn”

  66. Dave Congalton
    April 25, 2007 at 7:38 am

    I will continue to delete juvenile and immature comments from this blog.

    If you want to make an argument, go for it. Take all the space you want.

    But if you’re just going to be silly, well . . . . .

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: