Convinced me. God's definitely on my side because I have a gun to defend myself against all the commies that Satan can send to get me.

Hope your medication and your grip on reality improves before you pen your next article. I suggest a 20 day waiting period while the Govt preuses your next article after a mental anf criminal background check by the FBI.

Humm, not really funny or poignant as a satire of gun-owners, not funny or decisive as a mockery of gunowners. More or less a waste of the time it took to read it. Just thought you should know there billy bob.

There is reason to be suspicious of a government whose bigotry discriminates against anyone who isn't a police officer. Weapons of mass destruction are one thing, but any weapon that is needed by police for domestic law enforcement is needed by private citizens for domestic law enforcement. That is, if you still consider this a system of self-government -- government _of_ the people and _by_ the people (and not just "for" the people). That is, if you consider the police to be servants of the people rather than our masters.

The troglodytes' knuckles are swiftly dragging out any evidence of humor...

Hey, ya' know why there aren't many "Liberal" jokes or even much satire directed at them? Because they're as funny as brain cancer, and far more serious.

Why do I need to own a politically incorrect 'assault rifle?' For the creatures("Liberal" freaks) who tell me I don't 'need' it.

The kind of 'gun control' Amerika needs:
"No child shall be allowed to graduate high school until he/she has demonstrated the ability to control a gun well enough to hit a running "Liberal" at 300 meters."

Common sense 'gun control' is keeping a weapon handy after familiarizing yourself with its use. Reasonable 'gun control' is hitting 8 out of 10 "Liberals" you shoot at. Good 'gun control' is hitting the "Liberal" you target without having to get close enough to smell it. Excellent 'gun control' is dropping it with only one shot.

When my gun is pried from my cold, or hot, dead hands, I intend it to be by a younger, stouter, abler fighter who will continue to use it against those whose every breath is consumed by the relentless effort to destroy human Liberty.

All gun control is propaganda designed to condition the sheeple to accept further ‘control’ until the final objective, civilian disarmament, is achieved. Thus all gun control is an act of war.

Self-proclaimed Pacifists who vote cannot be what they claim. Government is force by it’s very nature. The ballot always leads to the bullet, without fail. The two are inseparable.

Don't understand? Go read my quotes page:

http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

Then share with those who want a clue. The rest? Just remember where they live.

Again, Bill, I would remove the above post from this little dink, or make him post his name. Anonymous threats are the last refuge of a cowardly little kitten. Kinda furry and cute, aren't ya little fella?

This is typical anymore. It's taboo to make fun of people because they're black, gay, or foreign anymore, but it's now considered cool to make fun of rednecks.

This is just an example of the current flavor of bigotry today. It's come 360 degrees and now redneck jokes about american gun owners are the most popular.

Who's suprised? Not me. If this was done in the same fashion about African Americans, Gays, or vegetarians, there'd be outrage about it.

Well, I guess it is good that some retail businesses are making money right now, even if it is just the gun dealers. I just find it ironic that people that care so much about the subject don't bother to find out the real facts. The NRA may be your bible, but they have no qualms in lying to you. The campaign lies they put out are just that, lies. They can't put out the facts, because they can't scare you enough with that. President-elect Obama is not trying to take away your guns, or even your ammo, unless you only have armor piercing kind. Seems like the police in this great nation (you know, those people who put their life on the line daily for our protection) have a problem with ammo that renders their bullet-proof vests useless. They don't think every average Joe should have such ammo because it has a tendency to end up in the hands of those who want to use it against them. Can't say I blame them too much. Most of them are willing to die if they must but would much prefer retirement instead.

If you actually do your own research and not rely on those who distort and twist for political gain, you might find you don't have as much to worry about as they might want you to believe. Check it out yourself.

Oh, and the last time I went hunting, I just don't remember seeing any elk or deer with bullet proof vests requiring armor piercing ammo. Just an observation.

waypast: Once again, you have never killed anyone and you never will. Woof Woof.

The article serves as an excellent argument for sharply curtailing the freedom of speech.

roseinmt,

Maybe YOU should be the one to do your research. The liberal left want to take away anything that will go through a bullet RESISTANT vest. Those vests are only designed to stop low to medium velocity rounds. ANY hunting round(ie..30-30, 30-06, .308, 270, 7mm, 300 Win Mag....) WILL go through a police vest. These rounds are NOT armor piercing rounds. It is unfortunate that so called "gunowners/hunters" are willing to elect a socialist government with the false sence that they are safe because "they don't want my hunting rifle/shotgun".

P.S. True Armor Piercing ammunition IS ILLEGAL.

P.S.S. There is no such thing as a "Bullet proof vest" in civilian police forces.

So you guys are still running this tired editorial gimmick, then?

As a reminder, the views of the individual writers do not necessarily reflect the views of NewWest.net. The writer, and ONLY the writer, takes responsibility for the column.

As a liberal, a Democrat, and semi-auto AK-47 owner, I find this article discriminatory, anti-progressive, intolerant, and outright wrong. The author/satirist should be ashamed of themselves. This article is disrespectful of my life choices as well as being divisive.

As a liberal, I know that gun control is anti-progressive, intolerant, racist, classist, sexist, and anti-gay. And as a flaming liberal who is OK with gay marriage, against pre-emptive wars, and pro-choice, I could not in good conscience vote for Obama in the past election because of his divisive, intolerant, and classist views on gun control.

You, sir, have inadvertently proved me right. I do not associate with intolerant, hateful people such as this author, and want to point out that not all liberals hold the repugnant, disgusting views that the author of this hateful piece does. True liberals like myself recognize that being a progressive liberal means being tolerant of ALL peoples' life choices, no matter what we think of them personally, and that includes the life choices made by gun owners to own effective defensive weapons like mine.

jlbraun - Since when is an AK-47 a "defensive weapon"? Don't get me wrong. I would like to own an AK-47 because I love shooting but I think they call it an "assault" weapon because it is a great offensive weapon. I think I would rather have my 12 gauge in my home for defense. Also, when is the last time you had to defend yourself with a gun? Just curious.

You seem like a troll to me. I do not know many liberals who would characterize themselves as a "flaming liberal" and then claim they voted against Obama with the natural assumption being that you voted FOR the candidate who is against everything you supposedly believe in.

Blah Blah Blah.

Most of these 'black guns' are made in foreign countries and Planet of The Apes sucks. Funny shit.

-CAMT-

tl;dr. But from what I did read, I can tell the author is a moron. If this guy is the smartest fellow the progressives can have write blogs, the progressives are in a world of hurt.

Gee, it would be nice if New West would ask a genuine gunny to discuss Obamanation in terms of gun rights, on a better platform than just the comments page.
Normally, Bob, I sort of enjoy your gonzoistic, pinkish rants, but this is just puerile clag. I mean, you had to gin up a nonexistent "brother" because you know it's too low, a shot too cheap even for you.
Shameful.

very classy picture subtitle, smearing our service members and portraying them as thugs. Very classy indeed. We can expect more of these smear attacks now that the democrats are in charge. Oh, and the second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.

Let's keep our facts straight. Billy Bob is a second cousin, not my brother.

I would endorse registration for all weapons.
If we can't get the psychopaths by those means, then I would endorse a program that would scan the internet for evidence of psychopathic posts.
Certainly there have been several who have responded to Wm. Wire's article--the usual posters, of course; plus some new handles designed just for the instant purpose.

Best reason not to have gun control. After this weekends Alabama-LSU football match there was some name calling between two fans in Alabama. They are also(make that were)old friends. So one goes to the others house and being righteous American gun owners they are ,of course, both armed. They killed each other. Reminds me of an old joke in a red state i sometimes worked in.
Billy Bob,if ma and pa get a divorce are they still brother and sister?

Well, bring it on, Mr. Crime Doer, ‘cause I’ll be waiting here with my fully chromed Sig Sauer P229 and a mile long boner.

HA HA HA!!!

JD,
You better stick with your pseudonym because the Warm Springs meat wagon is out trolling for you. Maybe we should have a new provision in the UNPatriot Act that mandates a homing device in every computer so that commenters can rat each other out...it'll be a perfect world just like the USSR.
Heck, maybe you should go ahead and just move there now. Putin should have everything all set for you any month now.
And elfster...the reason it's called an "assault weapon" is because the very first midsize semi/full-auto rifle was called something similar...the Sturmgeweher 44, a literal translation from German for "assault rifle."
The definition hasn't changed. If it has semi AND full auto capability, has removable quick-change magazines, it's pretty much still an "assault rifle" and regulated under the National Firearms Act. New manufacture for civilian ownership has been prohibited since 1986. Thank Charlie Rangel and the Democrats AND the NRA for that.
Assault WEAPON, however, was a clever turn of phrase by a semanticist named Josh Sugarmann of the so-called Violence Policy Center...which if I recall right, is bankrolled at least in substantial part by, gee, the Joyce Foundation, on whose board of directors Mr. Obama sat during VPC's time of greatest legislative success?
Semi auto's that LOOK like "assault rifles" yet work like "hunting rifles" in firing mode became, viola, "ASSAULT WEAPONS." Pure semantics, pure BS, and gullible Congresscritters and newsmedia fell for it like a ton of bricks.
Hmmm. Wonder if NW should solicit a guest column from me about this?

Obama voted for the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and to continue the Iraq War. Obama is against gay marriage as well. As such, what reason does a flaming liberal Democrat like myself who is against ALL these things have to vote for a business-as-usual guy like Obama? None! I voted third party, because Obama had multiple chances to win my vote and he blew all of them.

Besides that, he's a tool of the Republican Brady Campaign (the people that wrote the Assault Weapons Ban are all Reaganites). Did you know that "assault weapon" is a term that originates with Republican organizations? 'Tis true. Why is Obama pushing Republican propaganda?

"Assault weapons" are simply common semi-auto rifles with modern styling. Military rifles are fully automatic, not semi-auto only. Therefore, the semi-auto in my closet can not remotely be construed as a "military weapon". There are several million of these semi-auto rifles with modern styling in America, and they are virtually never used by criminals.

And the reason that a semi-auto rifle with modern styling is a good defensive rifle for me and lots of other liberals is the same reason it's a good rifle for police officers - compact, light, and reliable. I don't intend any harm to other innocents with it, so how can it be an "offensive" rifle? The implement only does what the user intends - if the mindset of the wielder (me) is defensive only, therefore, it is a defensive rifle. Period.

And I hope to never have to defend myself with a gun, just like I hope to never use the fire extinguisher in my car. However, the fact that I have not had to use either yet is of course not an excuse to not possess them. Though the likelihood of need is low, the cost of not having when needed is very high. Have you used your life insurance yet? Why do you have it, then?

Again. Neither Obama nor the author of this intolerant, hateful article represent me and lots of other liberals.

jlbraun - you do not strike me as a liberal. Rather, you sound like a single issue voter to me. You may agree with liberal issues such as abortion rights and gay marriage but if you place those issues on the backburner because you are weighted so heavily on the Second Amendment then you really do not hold these issues dear to your heart.

By the way, I do not have a fire extinguisher in my car. Should I be afraid of being attacked by a fire with no means of defending myself? Maybe I should invent a gun that doubles as a fire extinguisher. Then I could wear it around on hip and be ready for anything. On second thought... what happens if I am in a flood? How will I defend myself against an angry flood?!

I fully understand the difference between fully auto and semi-auto and I am all for heavy regulation on the ownership of fully automatic weapons (a point you may take issue with). As for my use of the term "offensive" weapon... I was simply making a comparison between the effectiveness of a weapon in a short range situation. I would much rather have a shotgun loaded with buckshot for self defense in close quarters (which would more than likely be the case in a domestic break-in) than a weapon best suited for "offense". In other words, if I was going to engage an enemy in an offensive situation at medium range I would much rather have the AK. But, that is just me.

Also, my life insurance is for me beneficiaries... it has nothing to do with protecting my life. Seems like a ridiculous analogy to make.

elfman:
OK, bad analogy. Life insurance requires that you be dead to use it. What about your homeowners fire insurance? Has your house ever burned down? No? Then why do you need fire insurance?

Would you still vote for Obama if he said that abortion should be illegal? No? Then you're a single issue voter.

Would you still vote for Obama if he wanted to attack Iran? No? Then you're a single issue voter.

Anyway, I'm anything but a single issue voter. I voted third party because Obama supports many many things I as a liberal find unconscionable - the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, a ban on gay marriage, the Iraq War, and *lastly* gun control. He doesn't support liberal issues, so he lost my vote. I'll wait for a real liberal that I can get
behind.

The fire extinguisher and fire insurance policy analogies are made because they both are things that you hope never to use, but you have them anyway. A semi-auto rifle is the same. I'm considering selling my shotgun, actually. A semi-auto rifle is more versatile, especially with frangible ammunition so it does not overpenetrate.

And again, the above article and its hateful, intolerant author do not represent me, nor the views of lots of other liberals.

Elfman states: “Since when is an AK-47 a "defensive weapon"? Don't get me wrong. I would like to own an AK-47 because I love shooting but I think they call it an "assault" weapon because it is a great offensive weapon.”

The semi-auto AK-47 is called “an ‘assault’ weapon” to scare the stupid who are too illiterate or lazy to do research to learn the truth.

I apologize for interjecting facts into your lies, stupidity and mockery of law-abiding citizens; but a couple of points need to be addressed:
1) The Second Amendment has NO “Sporting use” clause, meaning that only sporting use guns should be in the hands of citizens. That is only a ploy by the Anti-Freedom Nazis to scare the foolish.
2) In 1994, before the Federal "assault weapons ban", you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon”. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994) In the first year since the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, Preliminary Summary, 2004)
Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1% (Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994)
Even the government agrees. “... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes” (“Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.”, National Institute of Justice, March 1999)

This little video may help those unable to do research to understand the “Assault Weapon” LIE a little better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbIIjIFKYYg&NR=1

As for the ignorant statement questioning “defensive weapon”: The Korean shop owners during the “Rodney King Riots” clearly demonstrated that the AK-47, AR-15, SKS and similar arms ARE defense weapons, when their stores and homes, protected by said arms, went unburned and un-looted. Why? Because the Korean owners were on the rooftops, protecting their families with the AK-47, AR-15, SKS and similar arms when the police ran away as they so commonly do in cases of major threats (Katrina) or equal threat of power. (Like the two cops that could have stopped the Columbine massacre, but instead: they fired a few wild shots and ran away; leaving the children to be murdered.)

Let’s look at what constituted an “Assault Weapon” by the old ban, shall we:

SEMI-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and TWO OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING (Only ONE of the features and it’s OK):
• Folding stock (And what makes THIS a more “deadly danger”?)
• Conspicuous pistol grip (OOOOO! A “pistol” GRIP! For those who “feel” the “Assault weapon ban would reduce crime”; a pistol grip is NOT a pistol IN the grip of the rifle. It is only something to hold onto while shooting.)
• Bayonet mount/lug (The bayonet is NOT forbidden, just a little nub of metal.)
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one (A flash suppressor DOES NOT “eliminate the flash” as the ignorant/liars will tell you, it is only to keep the flash from blinding the shooter)
• Grenade launcher. (More precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades. Grenades and rifle grenades are tightly controlled and ILLEGAL for common citizens to even possess. A grenade launcher WITHOUT GRENADES is an APPLE CORER.)
SEMI-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and TWO OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING (Only ONE of the features and it’s OK):
• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip (OOOOOO!)
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer (silencers have been tightly controlled since 1934. To own one requires paperwork and paying a $200 tax. Yes, the Waco Massacre was for the accusation of failure to pay taxes, that were proven to be unfounded after the men, women and children of an unapproved religion, were gassed and burned to death: Like in Nazi Germany.)
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold (Oooooo! You can actually hear from one of the authors of the “Assault Weapon Ban” and let her educate you about the barrel shroud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo)
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A SEMI-automatic VERSION of an automatic firearm (It doesn’t pose the DANGER of the automatic version which has been tightly controlled since 1934, it only LOOKS “scary”!)
SEMI-automatic shotguns with TWO OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING (Only ONE of the features and it’s OK):
• Folding or telescoping stock (The DANGER is . . . WHAT?)
• Pistol grip (again, there is NO PISTOL in the grip.)
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds (Oooo! These have been around for what? A hundred years?)
• Detachable magazine (Oooooo! Just like my 60-year-old bolt-action shotgun uses!)
Roseinmt baselessly claims “NRA lies”: would you please list the LIES the NRA told about Obama? To the best of my research; Obama’s VOTING RECORD supported the NRA’s claims.
roseinmt stated: “Seems like the police in this great nation (you know, those people who put their life on the line daily for our protection) have a problem with ammo that renders their bullet-proof vests useless.”

You mean those people who have one of the SAFEST jobs in AMERICA? (There were 54 shot and killed in 2007, I don’t know how many of those were shot by incompetent fellow officers. 54 out of nearly a MILLION isn’t bad at all)

You mean those people who 95% of the time arrive too late to prevent a crime OR EVEN ARREST THE SUSPECT? (Witkin, Gordon, Guttman, Monika and Lenzy, Tracy. “This is 911 ... please hold.” U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1998)

You mean those people who are ALMOST NEVER EVEN CALLED UNTIL THE CRIMINALS HAVE SAFELY LEFT THE SCENE?
You mean those people that the courts have ruled HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

You are too ignorant to do research to learn for yourself, but
ALL hunting ammo renders police “bullet-proof vests useless”.
roseinmt stated: “If you actually do your own research and not rely on those who distort and twist for political gain, you might find you don't have as much to worry about as they might want you to believe.”
It’s obvious from you foolish post; that it is YOU roseinmt who won’t do your own research to find the truth, preferring instead to believe the LIES you are TOLD to believe.
roseinmt stated: “Oh, and the last time I went hunting, I just don't remember seeing any elk or deer with bullet proof vests requiring armor piercing ammo.”
What does hunting have to do with the Second Amendment?
Roseinmt, do some research for yourself, so you don’t sound so stupid to those of us who HAVE done their own research.

Milt stated: “Best reason not to have gun control. After this weekends Alabama-LSU football match there was some name calling between two fans in Alabama. They are also(make that were)old friends. So one goes to the others house and being righteous American gun owners they are ,of course, both armed.”

This is the best reason to ban SPORTS between supposed adults. The football game was the CAUSED of the altercation; the guns were merely the TOOLS used to settle the dispute. Had Michael Williams been defenseless, as the Anti-Freedom Nazis wanted him to be, he would have been dead instead of his TWO assailants.

“Billy Bob,if ma and pa get a divorce are they still brother and sister?” Only their whelp would post such question. (Joke?)

Wildfire - my comments were about the false info put out by the NRA against then Senator Obama and about President-Elect Obama's stance. I was not addressing anyone else’s stance, because the one that is most important to me is the presidents. I have to wonder why it is that you have to be a nasty person in your responses. Are you capable of having a discussion without being nasty and calling people names? I find it interesting that in your anonymity you have such vicious fingers. Do you think your points are only valid if you address others with such hatred and vitriol in your words? Would you say the same things to us all if we knew your name and face?

As far as police being a safe job, I would never agree with you. I worked in law enforcement and was married to a law enforcement officer. I was on the radio when one of my officers was shot on a call no one expected would be dangerous. I think the biggest problem is the knowing it can go bad at any time. Whether you have any appreciation for the people on the job is up to you, but I know how bad it can be. Unless you have walked in those shoes....

roseinmt- I think most if not all gun owners have all the respect in the world for those who put their lives on the line for the good of the citizens(police, fire & military). But it does get very difficult for gun owners who feel like we are being attacked from every direction. Even from the very people who should be on our side(gunowners).

You say "my comments were about the false info put out by the NRA against then Senator Obama and about President-Elect Obama's stance". Please roseinmt, tell us about this "false info". As has already been said Obama's State & Federal voting record says it ALL. He means to take firearms away from EVERYONE(except the "only ones"). His recent stance on the 2A is only a smoke screen to get himself elected President. If his appointments, from his VP to White House chief of staff Rahn Emanuel(Clintons point man on the assult weapons ban), are not enough to convince you that he IS as anti as the NRA said then there is no hope to change your mind about YOUR president.

Pardon me roseinmt, but you keep parroting “false info put out by the NRA against then Senator Obama and about President-Elect Obama's stance”, but I asked you to state WHAT “false info” and to give Obama’s voting record to back your claim. Have you noticed that you HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT?

“I was not addressing anyone else’s stance, because the one that is most important to me is the presidents.”
Fine. WHAT IS Obama’s voting record pertaining to GUNS?
I PERSONALLY, haven’t been able to find ANYTHING but ANTI-GUN votes, or “Present”. You keep talking “research, research” so you may have done a better job than me researching his VOTING RECORD; so please list, oh, say 5 pro-gun votes that Obama cast as a politician.

“I have to wonder why it is that you have to be a nasty person in your responses.”
Short answer: Because I have little patience for LIARS and stupid people.
I do not suffer fools gladly.

“Are you capable of having a discussion without being nasty and calling people names?”
Yes, but of course; with anyone who isn’t a LIAR or stupid.
Now to be fair, what do you mean by “calling names”?
If a truck cuts me off, I do not consider it “name calling” to refer to the driver of the truck as a “truck driver”.
What “names” do you feel I have called anyone that was not a correct definition? Please list them.

“I find it interesting that in your anonymity you have such vicious fingers. Do you think your points are only valid if you address others with such hatred and vitriol in your words?”

Let’s see your list of “names” and what I have said that was incorrect, supported by researchable data; and then I can give you a fact based answer.

“Would you say the same things to us all if we knew your name and face?”
Absolutely. Why wouldn’t I?

“I worked in law enforcement and was married to a law enforcement officer.”
How nice! How many felonies did YOU stop in progress? How many felonies did your significant other stop in progress?
I would be willing to bet, that between the two of you, there weren’t 10. I know that’s unfair, as you don’t make arrests in the radio room. (Criminals tend to avoid committing crimes in the presence of law enforcement officers, and tend to make every effort to prevent their victims from alerting law enforcement. However at each crime of violence, even though law enforcement was not there, the VICTIMS WERE THERE.)

“I was on the radio when one of my officers was shot on a call no one expected would be dangerous.”

If “no one expected would be dangerous” they are incompetent, expecting their “badge” to take the place of proper procedure and training.
Tell us, approximately what percentage of cop/criminal encounters did your department have that was NOT initiated by the officers? (“We have a report of . . .” Turned on the dominator, or lights, etc.)

How many pizza delivery drivers were shot compared to the number of your LEOs? Convenience store clerks? Taxi drivers?
In the time, HOWEVER MANY, of your officers were shot: How many NON-LEOs were shot?
I’m sorry; most officers retire without ever firing their gun outside of qualifying.

“I think the biggest problem is the knowing it can go bad at any time.”
How many of the victims at Virginia Tech woke up that day and said “I bet that ‘nut-roll’ Cho will go off today and kill a bunch of us! I’m sure glad it’s a ‘Gun-Free Zone’!”?
Most of those massacred, were killed AFTER the police were on the scene. Unlike the Appalachian School of Law shooting, where the two ARMED student held the killed until the police FINALLY arrived.

“Whether you have any appreciation for the people on the job is up to you, but I know how bad it can be. Unless you have walked in those shoes....”

Before enlisting in the military, I worked for the same Sheriff’s office as my dad, who retired after 35 years of service. So did my brother, until he lost his right eye to eye cancer. (I’d never even HEARD of “eye cancer” before.)
Why don’t you point out where I’m incorrect, and state some researchable data? Thank You!

Wildfire: Me too stupid, lazy and illiterate to think for myself. No, that is not it. I just think there is more to life than to go research the semantics of assault weapons. I do not care why they are called assault weapons. I love to shoot and I own many guns but I do not "love" my guns. They cannot love me back in the way that my girlfriend does. I do not know squat about calibers, ballistics, etc. nor do I care to learn though I do know plenty about gun safety (most important). I like the bang bang part. I also like the part where I get to eat Elk Tenderloin in November (by the way, I never said anything about the 2nd amendment having anything to do with "Sporting use"). I am not afraid, despite all your valiant attempts, of Obama. He is not taking my guns. I am also not going to spend my life terrified with my finger on the trigger due to the statistically remote (extremely so) chance that someone might break into my home or otherwise confront me and threaten my life. I do not know the answer (nor do I care to take the time to look it up... call me lazy if you wish) but my speculation is that the statistical probability of you finding it necessary to defend yourself with the use of a firearm at some point during your lifetime (unless serving in the military) is incredibly low.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

There is a great book called "When Anger Hurts: Quieting the Storm Within". I would strongly suggest you read it. This anger you have is going to eat you alive. Truly it will.

Elfman, I’ve read your posts, I answered your foolish post; you don’t have to convince me of your ignorance; your posts say more about you than your “explaining” ever could.

I have no "anger"; just little patience for stupid people.

Wildfire
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

Perhaps you are the liar or stupid person here. I haven't responded earlier because I'm not sitting on my behind in front of the computer all day, I have work to do. When I get the chance to read and check, I do. This above link is just one I have found that specifically refers to the lies and distortions the NRA put out. I don't have time to find the others at this moment. As far the the rest of your comments, you don't know as much as you think you do and you have no idea how little you seem to know. I have met so many like you and I am so glad I have the right to walk away and not be subjected to your bigotry and nastiness. Small minded people who believe they are god are so tiring I don't have time for them. Small minded people are the ones who respond with nasty comments becasue they think they know all there is to know. This area is meant for discussion but you evidently don't know how to do that. Please don't respond to my comments any more. I will not be responding to yours.

Wildfire - your anger exudes with every word you type.

Peace.

Yeah, Yeah, whatever.

roseinmt claims: “This above link is just one I have found that specifically refers to the lies and distortions the NRA put out.”
If you will RE-read your “source” it appears to base it’s OPINION only on what Obama SAID, NOT what he VOTED.
In fact, your “source” appears to CONFIRM rather than dispute: “The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165.”
AGAIN, I ask you: WHERE did Obama vote a positive gun law?

“I don't have time to find the others at this moment.”

I understand; it’s kinda hard to find something that DOESN’T EXIST, isn’t it?

“As far the the rest of your comments, you don't know as much as you think you do and you have no idea how little you seem to know.”

Any time you CAN give FACTS to support your CLAIMS; I’ll be all ears.
How many felonies did you say that you and hubby stop in progress? How MANY criminals did you say your police force encountered that the officers DID NOT INITIATE?
Tell ya what: why don’t you CORRECT ME where I’m wrong? That is: IF I’m wrong.

“I have met so many like you and I am so glad I have the right to walk away and not be subjected to your bigotry and nastiness.”

Blah, blah, blah, still can’t SHOW where I’m incorrect, can you? Bigotry? So telling the TRUTH is “bigotry” now? Hahahaha!

“Small minded people who believe they are god are so tiring I don't have time for them.”

But I thought you WERE an Obama supporter?!

“Small minded people are the ones who respond with nasty comments becasue they think they know all there is to know.”

Yet, you can’t dispute a single word I posted, can you?
You talk about people who “don’t do research”, yet you have researched NOTHING, and can’t even name 10 felonies you and your significant other stopped, but CLAIM that I am the problem.

“This area is meant for discussion but you evidently don't know how to do that.”

I present FACTS, you present . . . NOTHING.
YOU call ME a “bigot”, while accusing ME of “name calling”, yet you can’t seem to show what those “names” I called were.

“Please don't respond to my comments any more. I will not be responding to yours.”

I’m crushed that I won’t be blessed with more of your baseless comments, foolishness, lies and ignorance, but somehow, I’ll try to survive.

Author's Note: If you'd like to read the original blog, which I removed due to professional and safety concerns, send me an email to .

The funny part is when you said it makes me anti-gay.