Ramesh Ponnuru has a great question, that occurred to me as well, when I read this. This discussion is in the context of whether or not earmarks are a winning issue for Republicans. Well, they certainly aren’t unless they’re willing to embrace it. Which apparently they aren’t…

Common sense, from Jimmy Carter.

Common sense, from Jimmy Carter.

Common sense, from Jimmy Carter.

Supergenius:

In Jones

Is it possible that the Steyn imbroglio could be used to shut down the Canadian Human RightsWrongs Commission? It’s something else that’s long overdue.

[Afternoon update]

More thoughts from Damian Penny.

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