Something to keep in mind during the days to come. When this incident is cynically capitalized on as an argument for further limiting the right of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves:

The other very well-remembered campus shooting occurred in 1966 at the the University of Texas at Austin when Charles Whitman mounted the clock tower there and killed 15 and wounded 31 in that time. He was armed with two scoped Remington rifles, an M1 carbine and handguns. He had brought food and water enough for a long seige.

Most of his victims fell in the beginning the the incident. He was able to fire over the parapet into a virtually clear killing field below, filled with a lunchtime student foot traffic. He was able to fire pretty much at will . . . UNTIL

Police and PRIVATE CITIZENS including students began to return fire. (Students retrieved hunting rifles from their dorms and nearby student apartments). Unable to fire over the parapet, Whitman was forced into narrow sight lines through drains in the in the observation deck.

The incident ended when two lawmen and the manager of the UTA bookstore, who was on hand with his own pistol, assaulted Whitman's position and shot him dead.

At least some of those Virginia Tech students died becuase they were in a designated "no self-defense zone."

"I assure you that over the course of your lifetime, there is a 99.9% chance you will not have an opportunity to pull out your concealed weapon, blow away a Seung-hui Cho, and save a college campus."

Well of course not. And I'm hardly ever in an accident where a seat belt makes a difference. And house fires are darned rare. And plenty of cops work the job for 30 years without ever firing a shot.

But I still buckle up; I own fire extinguishers, have a family evacuation plan and carry homeowner's insurance; and cops are still armed.

Is it certain that a student or employee with a lawfully carried concealed weapon would have made a difference at Virginia Tech? Of course it's not. But then that's an irrelevant answer to a damned stupid question.

What is certain is that unarmed students, many of whom are acculturated to cower instead of fight (at bottom mindset is far more important than weaponry), were already out of choices when the shooting began.

We are each personally responsible for our own safety and that of our families, loved ones, and friends. That fact is a central reality of life. You may dispute it as you dispute the existence of gravity, with similarly inevitable consequences. The right to defend yourself and your loved ones is a fundamental natural right. And I'll go a step further to say that the willingness to do so -- and to prepare to do so -- is key to a decent human character. Sheep are useful, but I prefer to spend my time with sheepdogs.

Although wolves abound, for most of us -- thank God -- the day where our personal honor and our love and commitment to others is tested in that way may never come. But for those of us to whom those concepts have meaning, being prepared and willing 100% of the time is the cost gladly paid.

If you think that's a Rambo fantasy or a death wish, I suggest there's nothing left for us to discuss and you should feel free to go back to grazing.

“An amendment that would have closed the loophole that applies to gun shows, and forced sellers there to conduct background checks on buyers”

This is a lie and its one Salon continues to tell despite knowing better. The truth is simple: There is no “gun show loophole.”

Licensed firearms dealers who sell a gun at a gun show must conduct EXACTLY the same background check and impose EXACTLY the same waiting period as if they sold a gun anywhere else.

Citizens who are not licensed gun dealers are permitted to sell their guns to other private citizens and there is NO requirement that they conduct a background check anywhere at any time – at the gun show or over their kitchen tables.

Let me say it again – there IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. The law governing a given sale at a gun show is PRECISELY the same as the law governing that sale anywhere else.

I know this won’t help. I know you’ll keep using the phrase “gun show loophole” anyway. But every time you do, you tell a lie.

To say I am no fan of W would be tremendous understatement. But if there is anything in world for which I have less regard than his benighted administration, it is the supposed prerogatives of anyone who imagines themselves the beneficiary of primogeniture.

And while I’m still not over the debacle of the 2000 election, the only thing more horrific than the White House occupied by a man who might not have won is the image from “The Queen” – an accurate image my friend the London barrister advises – of a freely elected Prime Minister who did win, on his KNEES before this woman, waiting to be asked by her to head “her” government.

It’s a frightening, perhaps dangerous, time for U.S. citizens who cherish their human and civil rights. But at least no one has – yet – had the temerity to refer to us as "subjects" as the Brits are considered and, tragically, consider themselves. I cannot believe a supposedly modern nation has not thrown out this relic. And I despair that any American – even one eager to criticize the justly criticized President – would write in defense of her supposed dignity and station.