I have two thoughts on that. 1) I am not sure that anybody understood the gravity of letting out that many walkers. They probably thought it would be a distraction so they could get in and out but expected the Army to take care of them. None of them have really seen what a swarm of them can do.
2) The Army was going to kill them all on their way out. They do not have the weaponry, training, or numbers to fight back so they fought them with the only thing at their disposal. Carol used the walkers at Terminus in a similar way. The Army was their enemy at that point.
Two main reasons for me. First, I feel that as long as you are not infringing on the rights of another then you should be able to do pretty much whatever you want. The second reason is that unfortunately, we live in the gun country, there are too many of them to get rid of. As long as there are hundreds of millions of them out there or whatever the number is then people should have a right to have a gun as protection against someone that has one. I have never shot a gun, let alone plan to own one, but I am certainly not going to tell someone that they cannot have one for protection. That being said, I do not feel that anybody should be able to just go get one. You should have to pass a training and pshycological exam to be a licensed owner and should have to redo these for renewal, the same way someone has to do to be CPR certified. I also feel that there should be harsher penalties not only for if you commit a crime with a gun, but if your gun is used in the commission of a crime, because if it is then you are not a responsible gun owner. I do not feel that "hunting for sport" is a right however but that is for another day.
I am not sure what the whole plan would be because I honestly do not think that there is an answer. There are simply too many damn guns in this country so banning them is as unrealistic as deporting 11+ million people and most ideas seem more like band-aids to make us feel better rather than something that can actually work. I absolutely believe that in order to have a license you must go through very thorough training and a phsycological evalutaion. You must then renew both every year or so the same way you must do to be CPR certified. You must also prove that you possess a gun safe or other suitable way of storing said gun(s). That is a start, not sure where to go from there.
A good thing about StL and SD moving is that the entire NFC West will then be in the Pacific time (well, Arizona is most of the time). StL kind of gets screwed as it currently sits with three trips out there each year. If you move Oakland to SA then that helps out KC as they also kind of get screwed heading to the West Coast twice each season. It makes the West divisions better geographically.
The Chargers going with St. Louis and Oakland going to SA has been the best solutaion all along. The Oakland/SD does not make sense because then you have to switch up teh divisions and Kroenke's idea seems so much better. The only downside there is the NFL wants two teams there so they need to get one of the other two to go with them. From everything I have heard, StL and SD are doing all the work while Oak is involved in the SD thing almost as a throw in since two teams in the same stadium is the NFL's ideal situation. Ironically though it seems that a new stadium in either StL or SD seems much more likely than in Oak.
I do not see the point. Voters should be looking at the people and voting for the one that they agree with most. If they cannot make the decision without seeing a D or R next to the name then they clearly are too ignorant on the race to make an informed decisions anyway.