Re-read the passage above. Boortz wrote that the victims stood by in terror waiting to be shot, in a manner consistent with the “surrender-comply-adjust” ethics of the so-called left.

You can write all you want about what Boortz may have meant, but what he wrote is not in dispute.

BTW, Bootz did nto blame the victims, he clearly blamed the murderer. What he asked was why can’t 15 or 20 people overpower one little weakling with a gun? What spurs some to action and freezes others? He then bloviates about why his enemies are attacking him for asking those questions.

The self-defense question is legitimate and is now being explored in the media by lots of people with letters after their names.

Is it wrong to compare and contrast the actions of the young people who cowered waiting to be executed to those of the Holocaust survivor who reacted immediately and shielded the door while urging his students to escape?

I am not blaming the victims….I am trying to learn about human nature and how a situation like this can be better handled. I am responsible for ten people at work and wonder how we would react and why.

So what do you make of Boortz statement “any questions as to why 25 students didn’t try to rush and overpower ”

Not the focus of his rant, but a key element. Yes, Boortz is an obnoxious blowhard, just like John Sugg and myself, but, even obnoxious blowhards (Iike us) make a good point from time to time. SOmetimes a reasonable and logical point is offensive to very sensitive people. My wife is a VT alum and has been glued to the TV for the last few days.

Maybe you used it as a bookmark? Check in your copy of ‘the communist manifesto’.

But anyways, you took Boortz’s comment out of context and you know it. But you have to spin it to try and bash Neal so that Sugg will approve your tripe for print.