um, if guns don't kill people, people kill people, I guess we can save money by removing all guns from the us army. riiiight?

btw back in the 19th century many states had as they have today, an expressly "individual right to bear arms for self defense"....so then we invented the revolver. interestingly, TEXAS had no problem BANNING the revolver and the court of texas upheld this against a state right to bear arms challenge, pointing out that despit esuch an individual right to bear arms, it's crazy to suggest a legislature can't decide WHICH arms one is allowed to have. this logic was repeated in tennessee vis a vis the bowie knife and in many other 19th centuy decisions. all this folderol by scalia about following original intent is usually just a smokescreen for right wingers who too often ignore and don't follow original intent; these "individual" right to bear arms state constitutions also indicate the insertion of the word "individual" was deemed necessary to DISTINGUISH the state right to bear arms from the one in the USA constitution which does not have the word "individual" in it, so if you used normal legal reasoning, that would mean Heller is wrongly decided and the well regulated militia clause does mean there's no individual right to bear arms. I mean, they could have said "individual" like many states did, but they didn't, QED no individual right to bear arms. but anyway even conceding such an individual rights, of course it's not unlimited.....thus the power of the "we can ban private owneship of nukes" argument. we ban n;ukes, tanks, bazookas in your home, why not bushmasters? gun lovers got no answer, just more lies.

Too bad nobody at the school had a gun or the shooter may have been stymied like the one down in Oregon last week. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-ar…