Ann Coulter's "Sad-free zone"

B

Big Don

New member
Some people don't like her free-swinging style. I, on the other hand, love it. No question where she stands!
=============
LET'S MAKE AMERICA A 'SAD-FREE ZONE'!
by Ann Coulter
April 18, 2007

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy, in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing, as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them.

Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone, at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"
If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
 
We will have to disagree on this topic. I cannot see how anyone can support this walking, talking loon. She is a disgrace to conservatives in my opinion. She embodies every negative thing that the far lefties likes to portrait of us. Her physical condition (obvious BDD) alone speaks to the state of her mental health.
 
She Speaks the Truth

Not popular in some quarters, but the message should always be evaluated on content not the message carrier! Since I loathe the "PC" attitude, I find Ann both informative and entertaining. Read her articles in Human Events and, next month, will attend a seminar where she is the speaker.

I'll tell you after that if she looks as good in person as her pictures!

In the meantime, ponder this -- no one can make you look like an idiot! You have to inflict that damage on yourself by your own actions, lack of actions or statements.

"It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

John
Mayberry, NC
 
"I cannot see how anyone can support this walking, talking loon. She is a disgrace to conservatives in my opinion."

She is a conservative columnist. As such, she must present extreme viewpoints, or no one will pay attention to her. No one would read a daily column written by a middle-of-the-roader. They're boring. That said, I fully agree with her assertion that concealed-carry helps prevent, rather than enables, mass violence.

Tim
 
That said, I fully agree with her assertion that concealed-carry helps prevent, rather than enables, mass violence.
Click to expand...
Even a broken clock is right twice a day (unless of course it is digital).

It does not bother me that the things she says are not "PC", it bothers me that they have no substance. She spews garabage solely to get attention with no real merit to most of what she says.

And there is a big difference between speaking the truth and being intentionally offensive to garner media attention. Insulting 9/11 widows and other such acts are just not how a balanced person acts. There is a reason even this administration has distanced itself from her.
 
"She spews garabage solely to get attention with no real merit to most of what she says."

But that's the whole point, isn't it? I'll bet there are liberals who read her column every day just so they can get mad at her. All political columnists try to tick people off.

Tim
 
But that's the whole point, isn't it? I'll bet there are liberals who read her column every day just so they can get mad at her. All political columnists try to tick people off
Click to expand...
But how can anyone support a mindset that would take shots at innocent people (such as the 9/1 widows) solely for self promotion? I have seen comedians do it and actually have an end gain. They made a bad situation funny and added a little bit of positive energy to the situation. This nutjob just makes things worse and feeds off it.
 
+1 to Playboypenguin. I somehow wound up watching her for a few minutes on Sean Hannity late Sunday night while surfing. She just blatantly makes it up as she goes. Most conservatives have distanced themselves from her, and even Bill Maher wouldn't do her again.
 
Actually I think she is quite effective at pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of the left

You will not see her attacking any of the victims families...unless of course they try to turn this tragedy into a book deal:D

The 9/11 widows used their "celebrity" to further an agenda....that makes them fair game in my book...and obviously Ms. Coulters as well

Just like Cindy Sheehan they tried to "hide behind their grief" while pushing an agenda

You cannot have it both ways
 
Last edited:
You know, I wish I could say I was surprised that this thread turned into a referendum on Ann Coulter.

Still, the article itself seems rather moderate, though I think she could have padded her language a bit more to make allowing concealed carry everywhere as doing a bit more than "reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur." Somewhat harsh language that could have been rephrased a bit, but all in all another decent "quit banning law abiding people from having guns" article.
 
You will not see her attatcking any of the victims families...unless of course they try to turn this tragedy into a book deal
Click to expand...
That is not true. She attacked them on a personal level because they were trying to force the govt to tell them how much knowledge they had of the attacks beforehand. They were victims wanting answers from the govt that was supposedly protecting them and she chose to further victimize them.
 
Ann

Ann deals in satire. Not all her opinions are literal. It is meant to affect
a emotional response from supportors and detracters alike.
Watch closely and you will find she has a tough time delivering her
monologue with a straight face. She deals in the extremes to sell books and
collect speech money.
 
It's a sign of how accurate and effective Ann is that the leftists and fence-sitters feel the need to throw stones. And "most conservatives have distanced themselves from her"? You must be mistaking meaningless moderates for "conservatives". :rolleyes:

Regardless, she is, as usual, correct. That is what truly makes the left hate her.
 
It's a sign of how accurate and effective Ann is that the leftists and fence-sitters feel the need to throw stones. And "most conservatives have distanced themselves from her"? You must be mistaking meaningless moderates for "conservatives".

Regardless, she is, as usual, correct. That is what truly makes the left hate her.
Click to expand...
No, we mean conservatives. I would not call this admistration moderate.

Wow, that is some logic. I guess every hated person in the world is only hated because they are right. Some people, like Coulter, are just worthless propagandists that feed off negativity.
 
Don't listen to me then.......what do I know

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005349.htm

My favorite quote

"The venerable status accorded this group of widows comes as no surprise given our times, an age quick to confer both celebrity and authority on those who have suffered. As the experience of the Jersey Girls shows, that authority isn't necessarily limited to matters moral or spiritual. All that the widows have had to say--including wisdom mind-numbingly obvious, or obviously false and irrelevant--on the failures of this or that government agency, on derelictions of duty they charged to the president, the vice president, the national security adviser, Norad and the rest, has been received by most of the media and members of Congress with utmost wonder and admiration. They had become prosecutors and investigators, unearthing clues and connections related to 9/11, with, we're regularly informed, unrivalled dedication and skill."

A.C. wasn't the first to take them to task.......she was just the most entertaining
 
"We will have to disagree on this topic. I cannot see how anyone can support this walking, talking loon."

Hmmm. After reading Big Don's topic, I don't see it as discussion about Coulter herself, more less one's 'medical opinion' of her. I see the issue of 'Gun Free Zones' that Coulter opined.

I completely agree with what she stated. But, if I must jump on the OT bandwagon: I agree with quite a bit on what her opinion is, just not HOW she presents it...JMHO of course...
 
Ann deals in satire.

Don't mistake self-promotion for satire. The smile during her delivery is another way of saying, "I can't believe how these people eat this tripe up!" Her biggest attacks usually coincide with her book releases.

We can all agree to disagree.
 
Insulting 9/11 widows and other such acts are just not how a balanced person acts. There is a reason even this administration has distanced itself from her.
Click to expand...

Has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. From what I read, her position on the living relatives of the 9/11 disaster was hardly what you ascribe to it. She, and several other pundits, have already pointed out that the 9/11 families are receiving upwards of $1,000,000 plus in compensation. The families of the police and firefighters in the rest of the country receive virtually nothing for a line-of-duty death. The survivng family members of the military are able to almost bury their sons, daughters, and husbands on what they get. I suppose that pointing that out in the same paragraph means that I'm also insulting the widows of 9/11?

She's no worse than the twits that encompass the other end of the spectrum, at least she uses a factual rant in most of what she says.

Let's keep the analysis in the office. Otherwise, somebody may actually think that posters here are capable of rendering "informed" decisions like:
Her physical condition (obvious BDD) alone speaks to the state of her mental health.
Click to expand...

As usual, that's an opinion, and hardly verifiable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top