http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html
2007-04-20 09:12:23 · 9 answers · asked by stepped on the Third Rail 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think the left-wing point is that, if it were harder to get a gun, the nut-job Cho wouldn't have had one.
As a nation, we MUST go one way or the other. If we're going to make it impossible for law-abiding people to defend themselves, then we need to make it practically impossible for law-breaking people get weapons. One of the tragedies of the VT situation is that Cho, with a history of mental instability, was able to get not one, but TWO guns with no questions asked.
Or we go the other way: if it's easy for anybody to get a gun, then there should be no place or situation in which a law-abiding citizen is restricted from taking one.
Right now, we're in the middle, and that's always dangerous. We have made is easy for anyone to get a gun, but impossible for law-abiding citizens to have one with them when they need it.
Since the Constitution guarantees our right to own weapons, we need to outlaw gun-free zones.
But I think we also need to do a MUCH better job of making sure that nut jobs can't get one, that people are trained in their use, and that they are appropriate to the situation. (Nobody needs to be able to deliver 30 rounds per second for home defense, ya know?)
2007-04-20 09:35:59 · answer #1 · answered by Chredon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ted is right... The opposing nut job is wrong.
IF someone had a gun that day at VT, this could/would have been less of a massacre.
It was a GUN FREE zone. So only someone intent on breaking the law was going to have one...DUH. Pass a law...stop nothing.
My question..WHY in the &^% did they sell a gun to a NON citizen...yes he held a green card. But *&(^
2007-04-20 16:27:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think Ted disagrees with the gun control advocates. Just a hunch.
2007-04-20 16:22:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's right, but he must also realize that people must asses a situation before they shoot. I dont want to advocate shooting before thinking, and I don't want to see shooting glorifed, but he is right to say that if people want a gun to protect themselves and others, they should be entitled to it.
2007-04-20 16:19:58 · answer #4 · answered by Ice 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree.
2007-04-20 16:16:45 · answer #5 · answered by Jadis 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ted's right. He's also inflammatory, offensive, and ought to shave that atrocity below his lower lip, but he IS right.
2007-04-20 16:36:32 · answer #6 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
didnt read it, gun control is hitting what you shoot at.
2007-04-20 16:18:06 · answer #7 · answered by jeeves jr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is right.
2007-04-20 16:16:22 · answer #8 · answered by danzahn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he is right.
gw
2007-04-20 16:25:29 · answer #9 · answered by georgewallace78 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋