It takes nothing more than a large-scale massacre to get gun advocates “up in arms.” The police hadn’t even finished counting the bodies at Virginia Tech before pro-gun talking points were issued. And the message was, “Let’s not exploit this tragedy to bring up gun control.”

Look, if 32 people all on the same campus, within the same 2 hours died because they slipped on banana peels ”” then we should not exploit that tragedy to bring up gun control. Otherwise, it was as good a time as any.

But the conversation never occurred.

Somehow it became about mental illness: “Cho Seung-Hui was mentally ill, yes ”” but no one should assume that all people that suffer from mental illness are spree killers. People that have mental illnesses can be productive members of the community. Some could even be your co-workers and neighbors. Lets not paint anyone with a broad brush.”

Noted.

So, instead of talking about weapons the topic became about living with depression. And then tangents about creative writing were thrown in just for balance. “Cho wrote disturbing things, yes but have you ever read Shakespeare or Stephen King? Very dark.” He was also a Korean immigrant, a college student and clearly a fan of NBC news, these have all been discussed.

But not the obvious issue of guns, magazine capabilities and easy access. Nope. Can’t talk about that. That would be too opportunistic. For shame.

This is like if after the Spinach E. Coli deaths we had a national conversation about photosynthesis and soil acidity because the spinach advocates scared everyone out of talking about food safety.

“And tonight our series about the hazards from seed to salad on To Catch a Crop Pest” ”

Let’s face it, gun advocates are bullies and well ”” they’re armed. So of course they’re a frightening adversary.

But this is America and you can pry my discourse out of my cold dead hands!

This was my favorite: the people who stated that if the students at Virginia Tech had been armed the carnage would have been minimized.

Right. If everyone were armed, there would have been less violence.

Those same people never say that about nuclear weapons.

They’re not out at the, “Nukes Not Dukes” rally. Or throwing a fundraiser for developing nations. “Come on ”” Bolivia needs the Bomb! Mongolia should beef up their defense! And don’t forget Poland!”

No, when it comes to nuclear weapons ”” government control is welcomed and necessary.

There were no revolvers, semi-autos or assault rifles in 1776. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the ”˜arms’ were single-shots and took 5-minutes to reload ”” four if you were really skilled. You had to make your own bullets and carry black powder in your pocket. The accuracy was questionable and don’t even think of hitting a remote target.

The 2nd Amendment should absolutely protect those arms. We should all have the right to keep and bear them.

The government already regulates what drugs we can take, whom we can marry, what type of pets we can keep, at what trimester we can have an abortion, what chemicals we can buy, who can drive a car, what we can watch on television, what is considered pornographic, when suicide is permissible and what fruit we can take over state lines ”” I think they can take a little control when it comes to deadly weapons.

One person’s “right” to be able to shoot off 170 rounds in a couple of minutes doesn’t need protecting. No quite the opposite.

And I’m willing to exploit a tragedy to say it.