1 I figure that the calls to increase the money for the Department of Indian Affairs will come first. Along with a bill to exempt Indian Casinos from paying taxes forever, because we know deep down, its a underfunding problem.

2 From an annual letter my husband wrote when we were still living in sin, circa ten years ago. "We visited my sister in Arizona for Christmas, and while we were out there we stopped by a local reservation. We gave the Indians the gift of whiskey and rifles. They gave us the gift of cash."

3 I don't know why you'd think that. Of course it's got nothing to do with guns. He could easily have killed his grandparents, a security guard, and a whole lot of other students with something else. Like a stapler. Boy, he could have gone on that rampage with a stapler, or a kitchen knife, or some really sharp paper. Guns don't kill people! It's people armed with guns who kill people. Lots of people, efficiently and quickly.

4 As at Columbine, apparently this guy made no secret of his plan. Why do students not pass on reports of such threats?

5 Incidently, Lefty, I won't mention it but there are more efficint ways to kill large numbers of students.

6 Uh, didn't this kid off his grandfather first - y'know, the one who was *A COP* - and then use his service weapons to kill those people? As long as we're disarming the general public, let's disarm the police as well. After all, criminals (and terrorists) have rights too. We wouldn't want them to get hurt now, eh Mr. Lefty?

7 1) If I wanted to kill a lot of people very quickly, I'd probably go for explosives. Not that it would be terribly original, but it would be efficient. And they're pretty easy to do, unless you guys are planning on pushing "fertilizer control" legislation. Which you probably are. 2) Mr. L, I'm 5'1" and I weigh 115 pounds (okay--120). Therefore, if you're an average-size man, you probably have lethal power over me just by virtue of how big your hands are vs. my neck. If you think I'm going to let that power imbalance stand by not owning a gun, you're simply wrong. Have a nice day.

8 It's inevitable that after a tragedy like this there will be the obligatory round of people calling for restrictions on guns. It's human nature to immediately look for something to blame. That's precisely why the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that prohibited government from restricting certain rights, and insulated the amendment of that constitution from popular (and transient) passions. Liberals often like to say that the 2nd Amendment no longer carries weight, because they argue that "a well-regulated militia" means the police, not the people. But there are two parts of the 2nd Amendment: the first part justifies, the second mandates. The mandate is that the government may not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You can try to explain away the rationale as much as you like, but no amount of rationalizing will change the actual text, which obstinately prohibits government, until such time as the 2nd Amendment is repealed, from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. People can - and sometimes even do - make good, watertight arguments why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Why we should jettison it. To paraphrase Justice Scalia, if the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, if it's no longer a good idea, convince the nation, and repeal it. If you can't find enough votes to repeal it, then the Constitution is working.

9 Exactly.