In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, many conservatives have suggested that the shooting spree highlights the need for more guns in schools. Specifically, there has been a call by some on the right for “an immediate end” to the Gun Free School Zones Act, which prohibits the possession of a firearm in a school zone.

Michelle Malkin: “Enough is enough, indeed. Enough of intellectual disarmament. Enough of physical disarmament. You want a safer campus? It begins with renewing a culture of self-defense — mind, spirit and body. It begins with two words: Fight back.“

Earlier this week, Fox News’ John Gibson and Andrew Napolitano suggested that Virginia had dropped the ball by not allowing students to carry guns on campus:

GIBSON: So, theoretically, in this lecture hall where all 31 were killed, there could have been someone with a carry permit carrying their gun to shoot the shooter?

NAPOLITANO: No, because the same people that just dropped the ball, as Bo just described, that allowed 32 additional people to die, also said: “Virginia lets you carry a gun at a gas station or a bank or a stadium, but not on a college campus, where you may protect kids.”

At today’s White House press briefing, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino temporarily quieted the critics, reminding them, “As governor [of Texas], he supported weapons-free school zones.” Watch it:

In the 2000 presidential debates, Bush said, “[Gore] says we ought to have gun-free schools. Everybody believes that. I’m sure every state in the union’s got them. You can’t carry a gun into a school.”

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more

Via Kevin Drum, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday that Congress’ debate over a withdrawal timeline is having a positive impact:

Gates, on a Middle East tour, called for a range of efforts from inside and outside Iraq to speed up the formation of a broad-based government of Iraq’s majority Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.

….”The debate in Congress…has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited,” Gates told Pentagon reporters traveling with him in Jordan. “The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact…in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.”

Gate’s argument contradicts President Bush’s claim that timelines “send the wrong message to the Iraqis,” and prove al Qaeda’s accusations that America is “weak,” “corrupt,” and “can’t stand it.”

Artificial timetable for withdrawal send the wrong message to the Iraqis, they’re seeing it’s not worth it. There’s a lot of Iraqis over there determined — trying to make up their mind whether they want to be a part of democracy, or whether or not they’re going to take to the hills and see what happens. Artificial timetable for withdrawal, an early withdrawal before this finishes sends the message to the enemy, we were right about America. That’s what they said. Al Qaeda has said it’s just a matter of time before America withdraws. They’re weak, they’re corrupt, they can’t stand it, and they’ll withdraw. And all that would do is confirm what the enemy thinks.

Likewise, Vice President Cheney said last week:

It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region. Instead, it sends a message to our enemies that the calendar is their friend, that all they have to do is wait us out — wait for the date certain, and then claim victory the day after.

Such hypocrisy isn’t confined to the Bush administration. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who regularly maligns timelines as a “date certain for surrender,” admitted he used those very calls for redeployment to “motivate the Maliki government” during a dinner last month with Prime Minister Maliki.