As always, Morgan falls into the trench most liberals do, insisting that we dislike something nobody could change - like race or nationality - instead of understanding it's the ideas he espouses that we detest. Of course, the fact that he's British adds irony to the equation, given that it was the gun control orders of the British Governor of Massachussetts that sparked the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and thus the Revolution. Add in the post gun-ban violence rate in "utopian England" that exceeds America's and it's just icing on the cake.

Maybe I am "excessively attached" to my guns, but if I am then I am also "excessively attached" to my freedom of speech, religion and assembly, as well as all the other rights enumerated in the Constitution. But as a descendant of a Lexington minuteman, maybe such mental illness is hereditary.

And despite media reports, the shooter didn't stop just due to a weapon jamming. KGW in Portland reported that he had cleared the gun, and was getting ready to open up again when he saw an lawfully armed private citizen with his concealed carry firearm coming towards him. But that's a gun saving lives instead of taking them - I guess it doesn't the agenda.

Google South v. Maryland, (1856), Morgan v. District of Columbia (1983), Riss v. City of New York, (1958), or the nearly 2 dozen other cases where the courts have shown that the goverment "bears no affirmative duty" to protect the individual citizen, but to protect society as a whole. Despite what the President claims "we" need to do, the government is not responsible for our protection, we are. Disarming the law abiding or further restricting our rights will not change that.

So the law abiding citizens have more rules to follow that the criminals will not? If insanity was as pervasive as you claim, then as the number of states that allowed concealed carry increased, the number of shootings should have as well. CT already has a ban on the cosmetically misnamed "assault weapons", they have permits to purchase and licenses to own handguns. But in fact the opposite has happened. What about proposing a psychological screening for voters, or at least a basic Civics 101 test? Given that the last election shows that most voters failed economics and history but aced political correctness and Theoretical PoliSci, I forsee a reduction in the number of eligible voters next time around.