Fred Thompson on Gun-Free Zones

Generally, I thought that Senator Fred Thompson gave a very good interview on Meet the Press this morning, though I was somewhat disappointed with his answer on gun free zones. I get the impression that Thompson believes that individual property owners have the right to decide to use their own property, but I would have liked to see Thompson asked to differentiate public and private universities. I understand and support his desire that people should have the choice what rules to adopt when they own the property, but I would have been nice if he had clearly reiterated what was stated in the quote that Russert read. Possibly Thompson thought the quote was enough, but I would have appreciated something more supportive in this interview.

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Senator Fred Thompson is our guest.

Virginia Tech, last April 32 killed, terrible tragedy. You had a radio report back at that time, and I’d like to share it with you and our viewers. “Virginia Tech,” the “administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon,” on the “campus. Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. Whenever I’ve seen one of those ‘Gun-free zone’ signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I’ve always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at.”

My sense in reading that is that you would be in favor of licensed citizens of Virginia, students, including students, to carry concealed weapons on a college campus.

MR. THOMPSON: It would have to be consistent with campus rules. I don’t think that all students need to be carrying weapons on the school campus. What I would, I would feel more comfortable with, if a child of mine was on campus, when I read about these people, 30 people or so being lined up and systematically killed without anybody apparently around to do anything about it, I think some, some thought really needs to be given as to who should be properly qualified and permitted and, and armed on campuses and other places where large people gather. But...

MR. RUSSERT: But you would, you would allow a campus to bar their students from carrying concealed weapons?

MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, it, it would have to be consistent with state law and, and, and school rules. And different schools would have, you know, the, the freedom to, to have their own rules as, as, as they see fit. . . . .

The take at the National Review Online was pretty positive:

Having just watched it on the DVR, I thought it was a very, very solid performance. Ground rule double.

Labels: ,


Anonymous HKL said...

What a disappointment. I thought Thompson had it together. Are there any of these guys that aren't a disappointment? I'm pretty lost.

11/04/2007 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From reading this transcript, it sounds like Thompson is not advocating any change in position from the current state of affairs. Very disappointing.

We even see blatant use of the word "override" here - which is at least an honest characterization - without any thought being given to what it implies!

Since when are our _public_ academic administrations _superior_ to the state legislature? Since when have they been granted veto power over public law? Where in the Constitution does it grant anyone the authority to grant such veto power? Ridiculous!

These public administrations need to be smacked down and lectured hard on exactly what their authority is...and even more importantly what it _isn't_.

They are _not_ the legislature, they do _not_ have any authority to veto state/federal law. Period.


11/05/2007 1:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home