Sweaty Teddy, The Motor City Madman, gets it Right

[Zipp0 1]

Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster
POSTED: 11:25 a.m. EDT, April 20, 2007
By Ted Nugent
Special to CNN


Editor's note: Rock guitarist Ted Nugent has sold more than 30 million albums. He's also a gun rights activist and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. His program, "Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild," can be seen on the Outdoor Channel.

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.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Andy9o8 3]

What CNN did was to post both Nugent's and Norman Pate's commentaries, which are counter to each other, for balance. Here's Pate's commentary.


***


Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms
By Tom Plate
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times, is a professor of communication and policy studies at UCLA. He is author of a new book, "Confessions of an American Media Man."

Read an opposing take on gun control from Ted Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.

The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone's hearts. At the University of California, Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are (to be blunt) citizens of High Noon America.

"High Noon" is a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down.

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that's 99.99 percent irrelevant. What are we to make of the fact that he is Korean? Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor.

So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.

In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor.

But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments.

"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens.

Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune -- not even us non-celebrities.

When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now, some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible.

Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.

Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?

This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses -- a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings.

Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head.

A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.

What is your take on this commentary?E-mail us

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer. This is part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts and points of view.

Read Ted Nugent's take on gun control here: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster








Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html


SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close


Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.



© 2007 Cable News Network.

[crotalus01 0]

Couldnt agree with Ted more. Studies have conclusively shown that areas with super strict gun control laws suffer from significantly higher crime rates than places that have conceal carry permits laws.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Couldnt agree with Ted more. Studies have conclusively shown that areas with super strict gun control laws suffer from significantly higher crime rates than places that have conceal carry permits laws.

Washington DC and Philly being 2 fine examples.

Ted's argument is more persuasive than the other, IMO.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Royd 0]

His reply is full of holes. Of course, he's not here to reply to the arguments.

The poor fellow would have given up the goods if the robber had approached him with a rubber knife, and then called it a near death experience.

Shouldn't everything that kills large numbers of people be attacked with the same fervor?

Drivers don't kill people. SUVs do.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Couldnt agree with Ted more. Studies have conclusively shown that areas with super strict gun control laws suffer from significantly higher crime rates than places that have conceal carry permits laws.

Washington DC and Philly being 2 fine examples.

Ted's argument is more persuasive than the other, IMO.

Just to intellectualize this a bit (ha!):

1. Areas with super strict gun control laws suffer from significantly higher crime rates, because strict gun laws generally tend to exist in cities with areas of poor inner-city neighborhoods which ALREADY have very high crime rates. So it's a misleading statistical correlation.

2. Philly and ESPECIALLY Wash DC are poor examples, because they're each adjacent to jurisdictions that have permissive gun laws. Washington is actually a fairly small city, area-wise, which not only borders on Virginia, but about 3/4 of the entire city is a "high crime neighborhood", especially after dark. Guns flow freely from Virginia into DC and neighboring Prince George's County, MD.

So, that's why having small pockets, like cities, of strict gun control is a social experiment which, as gun advocates correctly point out, has failed. We have not yet had the social experiment of numerous large entire states, with large populations, having very, very strict gun laws across the state for a few decades at a time, to guage the long-term effect. So, lacking the raw data, all that's left is speculation on whether that might or might not make society safer over the long run.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

His reply is full of holes.

What caliber?

[ExAFO 0]

Guns are no more responsible for murders than spoons are responsible for making people fat.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Couldnt agree with Ted more. Studies have conclusively shown that areas with super strict gun control laws suffer from significantly higher crime rates than places that have conceal carry permits laws.

Washington DC and Philly being 2 fine examples.

Ted's argument is more persuasive than the other, IMO.

Just to intellectualize this a bit (ha!):

1. Areas with super strict gun control laws suffer from significantly higher crime rates, because strict gun laws generally tend to exist in cities with areas of poor inner-city neighborhoods which ALREADY have very high crime rates. So it's a misleading statistical correlation.

2. Philly and ESPECIALLY Wash DC are poor examples, because they're each adjacent to jurisdictions that have permissive gun laws. Washington is actually a fairly small city, area-wise, which not only borders on Virginia, but about 3/4 of the entire city is a "high crime neighborhood", especially after dark. Guns flow freely from Virginia into DC and neighboring Prince George's County, MD.

So, that's why having small pockets, like cities, of strict gun control is a social experiment which, as gun advocates correctly point out, has failed. We have not yet had the social experiment of numerous large entire states, with large populations, having very, very strict gun laws across the state for a few decades at a time, to guage the long-term effect. So, lacking the raw data, all that's left is speculation on whether that might or might not make society safer over the long run.

Yeah, the DC mayor keeps saying that... and still doesn't have any proof.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706