Proposed legislation to make liable entities that create “gun-free zones.”

All this does is make clear that whoever creates an obviously dangerous situation, by forcing the disarmament of innocent people entering, (“legitimate” coercion by the property owner) — which they’re fully entitled to do under the bill — there’s a consequence for that risky action. As there should be for creating such a self-evidently unsafe situation. And it only matters if the danger manifests, and some psychopath turns the hair parlor into a victim zone. If there’s no assault, then there’s no problem. Gun-o-phobes can sleep tight thinking the rest of us are just a bunch of paranoids. The bill merely addresses criminally misguided notions of safety…

Try thinking of this as the Luby’s Massacre Act. Maybe that will help emphasize the blatant and profound fraud of proposing gun-free zones as safety nets. The heartless, insensitive, thoughtless perpetrators of defenseless victim zones should be ashamed of themselves.

This kind of thing should have been done after 911. If Virginia had had such a law, the death and injury toll at VTech probably would have been a lot lower.

Of course, Sarkozy won’t like it, but fortunately, this is America, not France.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s a profile of the woman who stopped the killing in the Colorado church. Good thing it wasn’t a “gun-free zone.”

[Afternoon update]

Here’s someone else of whom Sarkozy would disapprove.

Here

Proposed legislation to make liable entities that create “gun-free zones.”

All this does is make clear that whoever creates an obviously dangerous situation, by forcing the disarmament of innocent people entering, (“legitimate” coercion by the property owner) — which they’re fully entitled to do under the bill — there’s a consequence for that risky action. As there should be for creating such a self-evidently unsafe situation. And it only matters if the danger manifests, and some psychopath turns the hair parlor into a victim zone. If there’s no assault, then there’s no problem. Gun-o-phobes can sleep tight thinking the rest of us are just a bunch of paranoids. The bill merely addresses criminally misguided notions of safety…

Try thinking of this as the Luby’s Massacre Act. Maybe that will help emphasize the blatant and profound fraud of proposing gun-free zones as safety nets. The heartless, insensitive, thoughtless perpetrators of defenseless victim zones should be ashamed of themselves.

This kind of thing should have been done after 911. If Virginia had had such a law, the death and injury toll at VTech probably would have been a lot lower.

Of course, Sarkozy won’t like it, but fortunately, this is America, not France.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s a profile of the woman who stopped the killing in the Colorado church. Good thing it wasn’t a “gun-free zone.”

[Afternoon update]

Here’s someone else of whom Sarkozy would disapprove.

Here

Proposed legislation to make liable entities that create “gun-free zones.”

All this does is make clear that whoever creates an obviously dangerous situation, by forcing the disarmament of innocent people entering, (“legitimate” coercion by the property owner) — which they’re fully entitled to do under the bill — there’s a consequence for that risky action. As there should be for creating such a self-evidently unsafe situation. And it only matters if the danger manifests, and some psychopath turns the hair parlor into a victim zone. If there’s no assault, then there’s no problem. Gun-o-phobes can sleep tight thinking the rest of us are just a bunch of paranoids. The bill merely addresses criminally misguided notions of safety…

Try thinking of this as the Luby’s Massacre Act. Maybe that will help emphasize the blatant and profound fraud of proposing gun-free zones as safety nets. The heartless, insensitive, thoughtless perpetrators of defenseless victim zones should be ashamed of themselves.

This kind of thing should have been done after 911. If Virginia had had such a law, the death and injury toll at VTech probably would have been a lot lower.

Of course, Sarkozy won’t like it, but fortunately, this is America, not France.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s a profile of the woman who stopped the killing in the Colorado church. Good thing it wasn’t a “gun-free zone.”

[Afternoon update]

Here’s someone else of whom Sarkozy would disapprove.

Here

Cynthia! is in the race:

The former six-term Democrat Congresswoman was ousted in 2006 from Georgia

For those who weren’t paying attention during the 90s, Stuart Taylor has a reminder:

I will not excavate Clinton’s own kindergarten confessions. Nor will I compare the honesty quotient of her campaign-trail spin with the dreadful drivel dutifully uttered by Obama and other candidates to pander to their fevered primary electorates.

Instead, let’s take a trip down memory lane — from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years — to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary’s first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.

He doesn’t mention that she not only had the Travel Office employees fired, but had the FBI prosecute them, with such flimsy evidence that the jurors acquitted almost immediately.

Unfortunately, it’s not a permalink. But it’s a useful read right now for “Hillary Supporter” (and Hillary! supporters in general). And as Ann Althouse asks, “How smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?”

Gee, maybe she’s not the smartest woman in the world?

For those who weren’t paying attention during the 90s, Stuart Taylor has a reminder:

I will not excavate Clinton’s own kindergarten confessions. Nor will I compare the honesty quotient of her campaign-trail spin with the dreadful drivel dutifully uttered by Obama and other candidates to pander to their fevered primary electorates.

Instead, let’s take a trip down memory lane — from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years — to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary’s first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.

He doesn’t mention that she not only had the Travel Office employees fired, but had the FBI prosecute them, with such flimsy evidence that the jurors acquitted almost immediately.

Unfortunately, it’s not a permalink. But it’s a useful read right now for “Hillary Supporter” (and Hillary! supporters in general). And as Ann Althouse asks, “How smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?”

Gee, maybe she’s not the smartest woman in the world?

For those who weren’t paying attention during the 90s, Stuart Taylor has a reminder:

I will not excavate Clinton’s own kindergarten confessions. Nor will I compare the honesty quotient of her campaign-trail spin with the dreadful drivel dutifully uttered by Obama and other candidates to pander to their fevered primary electorates.

Instead, let’s take a trip down memory lane — from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years — to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary’s first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.

He doesn’t mention that she not only had the Travel Office employees fired, but had the FBI prosecute them, with such flimsy evidence that the jurors acquitted almost immediately.

Unfortunately, it’s not a permalink. But it’s a useful read right now for “Hillary Supporter” (and Hillary! supporters in general). And as Ann Althouse asks, “How smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?”

Gee, maybe she’s not the smartest woman in the world?

…but he’s still idiotic on some issues:

Last year, Mr. Sarkozy told French radio: “Security is the responsibility of the state. I am against the private ownership of firearms. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he will use his weapon more effectively than you anyway, so you are risking your life.”

But of course, there is no risk to your life if you’re unarmed…

[Update on Monday morning]

As noted in comments, this thread got hijacked by the usual suspects, but here are some interesting thoughts on another Frenchman, Tocqueville, who was a lot smarter than Sarkozy on these issues. Also, on what happens when mass killers meet armed citizens, as was demonstrated over the weekend in Colorado.

…not universal health care. An essay by Lin Zinser and (Dr.) Paul Hsieh (of Geek Press).

Contrary to claims that government-imposed

“…it’s worth it.”

I haven’t said much about the Omaha mall shooting, either, but I agree completely with Glenn. No more “gun-free” zones. I, too, would like to see some lawsuits against those who (pathetically) attempt to establish them.

Because they’re a chimera, and a fantasy, and only enable the murderers and muckers.

[Friday update]

Scott Ott (in an uncharacteristically unfunny piece) has an alternate history:

As the would-be famous mass killer raised the rifle to his shoulder, the unnamed shopper commanded him to stop. Mr. Hawkins turned the muzzle of the AK-47 toward the commanding voice, a single shot rang out and Mr. Hawkins staggered, dropped his weapon and fell against the railing.

By this time, two other shoppers were aiming their pistols at Mr. Hawkins