They're bringing guns to health care protests

Why not bring guns.? Gun-toting is the Amerian Way. Look at our pistol-packing- mama with presidential aspirations. It's so chic for gals, so virile for guys. And so dangerous for a generations that had never been taught self discipline, moderation or restraint. And ever since the begin of the Bush (administration) wars, have we been counting corpses and speak of killing as it were a slap on the wrist. Lately, has anyone told the "Christian Nation" who believes "In God We Trust" that Christianity preaches that life is inviolable; that life is sacred for God is in us.

The 4th Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” My understanding of this is that we retain the right to bear arms to defend against the formation of an “un-democratic” government; to keep the power where it belongs, in the hands of the “People”. The only reason I can see as to why they are carrying weapons is a visual reminder that this government was meant to be “We the People, For the People” It is possible they wanted to remind Obama of this as more and more of his policies puts government control in more and more aspects of our lives; health care included. I’m not sure caring the gun was necessarily meant as a physical threat, rather a symbolic representation. I don’t know if this was what they were going for but any other intent is just plain stupid considering the President and his Secret Service was so close by.

Yes Isabell, America is a gun-toting country. That is why we have elected Presidents and not a Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro running our country. Your welcome.

Kim Tanksley I can assure that I am very well versed in the discipline "US GOVERNMENT." And it is not the militia that is out in force to protest this administration's health care reform. Besides the fact that your xenophobia is showing, the opposition to Barack Obama goes way beyond participating in a democratic system. The President's detractors are driven by hate , by lies and scare tactics. Those are not the genre of people who carry a gun for serving Domestic Tranquility. And I read the papers. Americans shoot each other at the drop of a handkerchief and lately since the Saturday-night-specials are hard to get hold of; people just knife each other to death. You are not even consequent with your own posts. I do not care for President Obama, but I have an open mind as to the sincerity of his believes. And as far as the EU goes, the best to my knowledge, they all elect their heads of government. That's all I have to say in context with your xenophobic and rude post addressed to me.

Gee Kim, the 4th Amendment? I thought that was what the 2nd Amendment read. Do you know what the 4th Amendment deals with?

Do you know anything about the history of Iraq or Cuba or the United States, for that matter? Your fantasy about guns and those countries is pretty amusing.

1. Xenophobia - great word.
2. Open-carried weapons have no place at an appearance dedicated to health care reform. Sure it's legal, but it doesn't mean you should do it. There are plenty of legal actions you can take in public places that don't make any sense and will just make people nervous. If he is having a meeting on gun control, tow a Howitzer cannon all the way down main street - at least it's relevant to the conversation. If not, do some research. Prepare questions. Participate in the conversation. At least pretend you showed up to do more than embarrass yourself.

Some folks have been to places in the world where there is no 4th Amendment. They know the benefit of training for the day you most expect, and dressing for the one that you may experience.

First of all, I was ruminating on why these people brought guns to this event. My comments were guessing as to the only reason I can think of that they would have done so. I wasn't condoning it nor condemning it.

Yes, Jerry West, it is the 2nd Amendment and not the 4th. I actually had been reading all of them recently and I got mixed up on the numbering. Big Deal. I was still talking about why the right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. The numbering error does not make me stupid just human.

As for my comment to Isabell, who feels that gun-toting is more an act to get attention by virile men and chic women… I was reminding her that it became the 2nd Amendment to ensure our country remains free of dictatorships. She should know that considering all the history she has lived through. Fidel and Saddam were the first to come to mind that were dictators in deeds if not in exact title. I don’t care if they were elected, they were still dictators. The right to bear arms is to keep us from the likes of them. I don’t need to be a scholar in the history of Cuba or Iraq to make my point.

In addition, how is commenting on the only reason I could think of that they would carry weapons…the only statement that I could figure they might be making all of a sudden make me a xenophobic Obama hater? The right to bear arms is fundamental to the founding of this country. Truly, I do not like it being characterized as a way to be chic and I mentioned it. So what.

So tell me guys… were am I wrong? Is a typo all you can think of? Go back and read my words without your preconceptions woven in and you will see that I was only thinking out loud trying to figure out why they were carrying guns. Looks like I’m not the only one looking stupid on this blog.

Oh... and did I mention... bugger off.

Isabel did not call Kim a xenophobic Obama hater, but Kim comes across as a xenophobic Isabel hater. Isabel never mentioned Kim in her post about gun toting. Isabel never said that she had a problem with the right to bear arms. She was talking about coming armed to the anti health reform demonstration. It was her opinion and she is entitled to it....legally I might add. I am a devout Christian. And being human is a God ordained responsibility, and not an excuse for being spiteful. Being human is not absolution for our sins. It's basic "...So God created man in his own image...and God blessed them...and have dominion over every living thing that moveth on earth....." from Genesis 1:27 and 1:28. Kim did not want to be accused of being chic. I think she made that quite clear. And now I am going to bugger off.

Eugenia go back and read Isabell's comments regading "Xenophobia" before stating she didn't direct it toward Kim.

As I quietly sit on the banks of the river Karma, what do I behold floating by, one by one? The Fourth Amendment, scholarship, reputation, friendship, and finally cold judgment preceding self exile. Oh what a world this blog has wrought!

I read it again. Isabel never mentioned Kim in her initial statement about "gun toting" to which Kim reacted like it was aimed at her. It was not. It seems that some people can read words but fail to comprehend meaning. Rich I suggest that you read Isabel's initial post again. And if you apologized I would accept it.

Now back to the issue. They brought guns. It was legal. If you read the linked article they told you why. I personally think it was dumb considering the President was so close by. It got it's attended attention.

"Why not bring guns.? Gun-toting is the American Way. Look at our pistol-packing- mama with presidential aspirations. It's so chic for gals, so virile for guys. And so dangerous for a generations that had never been taught self discipline, moderation or restraint. And ever since the begin of the Bush (administration) wars, have we been counting corpses and speak of killing as it were a slap on the wrist. Lately, has anyone told the "Christian Nation" who believes "In God We Trust" that Christianity preaches that life is inviolable; that life is sacred for God is in us." ISABELL LAWSON JULY 18, 11.38 AM

Now let Rich demonstrate that I mentioned Kim Tanksley in my post. Only AFTER Tanksley responded , addressing me by name, in very curt manner (she knows that I am foreign born) only then did I react with a post that included the word xenophobic Rich are you going to be a trouble maker, fanning flames for your own entertainment? Even if it meant being dishonest and putting words into people's mouths? And how dare you tell blogger Egenia 1896 what she can say and what not.

"deep down she is sweet and learned and" Kim about Isabel

Reading her posts I would say that she is very learned, and not just deep down. And her writing is very focused. She did not treat any constitutional right in a frivolous manner. She was saying how easily Americans shoot each other. And I too read the Fresno Bee. There is hardly a day going by when someone isn't shot; right here in town. But as you said, this is an opinion blog, and it is my opinion that you are not kindly disposed toward Isabel. But I can't make that my problem. And I shall bugger off.

When all is said and done all this article and resultant blogging does is guess at the intent of the people carrying the guns without bothering to ask them.
Seems to me that neither the article nor the original entry in this blog was concerned about why anyone was carrying a gun, but about the effect that the presence of guns might have. Even Isabell's first post was not so much a statement about why people were bringing guns, but a statement on the gun culture.

Your point seems to be that the reason that they brought them was just because they had a right to.

I would agree that they had a right to, but given the obvious effect that they would have, the question does arise, why in this particular instance.

I never said Saddam and Fidel were dictators because their country has no 2nd Amendment.
No, but there was an implied relationship between the 2nd Amendment and the fact that the US doesn't have dictators. A relationship that may not exist.

You chose to put me down.
Sorry if you took it that way. My issue isn't you but the way that you framed your argument.

I'm still here sitting quietly on the bank, wishing I was a better student of international relations. In just a matter of minutes I observed what appeared to be a foreign born swimmer in a muumuu, stroking against the current to no avail and who was ultimately forced back downriver again, then a melted binky floated by. Then I saw a document titled: draft "Bill of Rights," well protected in a double ziploc plastic bag; as it came within reach I rescued it. When it was completely unfolded, a note on the lefthand margin clearly read, don't forget to switch articles two and four before submitting this to the printer.

"Even Isabell's first post was not so much a statement about why people were bringing guns, but a statement on the gun culture."

Because the effect of the gun culture comes as close to an absolute as near as it can get. But there is no way that I can make a judgement as to what the individual has on his/her mind taking a fire arm to protest president Obama's health care reform. It is such an unexacting, elusive quantity that I would not be able to put it into any form of syllogism, demonstrating any semblance of logic. I agree with Aldous Huxley that "however elegant and memorable, brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex situation..." Since this blog does not require me to write a doctoral thesis, I prefer to stay tight, and leave rambling fantasizing to those who are comfortable with it. What I resent is when words get put into ones mouth and the very idea is being distorted for no better reason than to diminish. And when challenged, it is being trivialized with wide-eyed innocence ....all I did was. Self-pity? Yes; a little at nearly 24 hundred hour.

Mr. West, could it be that you are trying so hard to split hairs to find things wrong with what I say that you are missing the points that are right in front of you. I can split hairs too Jerry. You said, "Seems to me that neither the article nor the original entry in this blog was concerned about why anyone was carrying a gun, but about the effect that the presence of guns might have." Now reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit because the article discussed why they were carrying guns; that is where the quotes from gun carriers came from. The short article suggested "why" was an "in your face attitude." Now I didn't comment on the effects because they were clear. I was trying to figure out the why and mentioned an alternative statement they might have been making other than just a threat. The why was not clear and it seems an unusual thing to do so I chose to explore the why. Apparently you would have chosen differently and that's O.K. Jerry.

You said, "Your point seems to be that the reason that they brought them (guns) was just because they had a right to." No Jerry, it wasn't. I told you what my point was, I was trying to guess at what they may have been trying to say by bringing guns. You chastised me asking "was that all I could think of" when I listed a few more to make you happy, one of which was in the article that said they had the right to.

And Jerry, I did not imply that America does not have a dictator because of the 2nd Amendment. I was stating that the 2nd Amendment was put into place to allow us to oppose a dictatorship should it ever happen. Which ultimately why I disliked Isabell's characterization minimizing this right to being "chic".

Now I know your issue is not with me so when you implied (a word you use a lot) I knew nothing about history (of my own United States no less) and called my thoughts on guns fantasy, then called me careless, it is clear I am again fantasizing on the personal nature of those words. Or perhaps your writing is getting careless Jerry.

I will recap. I made two points:
1. I think they might have carried guns to this event as a symbolic gesture of "we the People."
2. America's right to bear arms should be given more credibility than being chic.
I'll even add a third opinion.
3. I think carrying guns to an event involving the President was stupid.

My only question to you is, have you wrung enough out of my blogs yet? Damn Jerry, I haven't gotten this much attention since I went skinny dipping with my college geology class! Which by the way is where I met my husband of 24 years... but that is a different story you'll have to come over for beers to hear.

I'm tenacious Jerry. Why don't we call a truce.

Bart you are a singular soul. You crack me up.

Now you know why we call them gun nuts.

There's another important reason for a law abiding citizen to legally carry a gun under these circumstances. Self defense!

At one previous town hall meeting on health care, several SEIU members assaulted people who were demonstrating outside. The union thugs were wearing SEIU shirts, and the incident was caught on video. A older man selling flags ended up in the hospital. There were arrests made, so the incident is now documented as a public record, for those who doubt that Chicago style tactics are being used.

Before anyone finds fault with a citizen legally carrying a handgun in Arizona, please remember where the violence started. When people are being assaulted for disagreeing with socialized medicine, it's time to consider self-defense.

Not only are you in the habit of ranting on and on based on false facts, you don't know English very well. Being unkindly disposed is not equal with hate. But Isabel seems to be a rare bird of forbearance. Or maybe she is a true intellectual. As for me, you and Murray were the reason that I left the blog before. I shall bugger off out of here again.

There is nothing wrong here, what are you complaining about?

1) U.S. Still Spends More on Health Care than Any Other Country. Site: http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html
2) Homicide rates per 100,000 population by region and subregion, 2004. 5.8 per 100000/
3) The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population. Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration
4) List of countries by literacy rate. The USA is tied at #17 with a rate of 99% with several other countries. Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
5) GDP on a purchasing power parity basis divided by population. This is basically per capita income. We are # 10. Site: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworldfactbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
6) Oil > Consumption (per capita) (most recent) by country, We are #23 at 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people. Cite: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita
7) Electricity Consumption per capita (kWh) 2009 Country Ranks. We are #9 at 12.668,77. Glad it is not too cold here, Iceland @ 30.362,51 is #1. Cite: http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/electricity_consumption_per_capita_2009_0.html
8) Core Health Indicators - Per capita recorded alcohol consumption. We are #33 at 8.6 (litres of pure alcohol). Cite: http://apps.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?strISO3_select=ALL&strIndicator_select=AlcoholConsumption&intYear_select=latest&language=english
9) Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds. Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. "The paradox is that the costliest health system in the world performs so poorly. We waste one-third of every health care dollar on insurance bureaucracy and profits while two million people go bankrupt annually and we leave 45 million uninsured" said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. Cite: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html
10) Legacy costs are “primarily refers to company obligations to pay heath care costs and pensions under defined-benefit plans for current employees and retirees…desire to abandon any form of social contract between worker and employer.” Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_costs
11) Aggregate Income as a percentage of total national income. This is how the "income pie" has been sliced from 1967 to 2001. Note that the highest income quintile (Q5) has seen its slice get bigger, while every other group's slice has gotten smaller. Over 50% of the nation's income goes to the top 20% of the earners. Site: http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html
12) Seven Deadly Sins of Deregulation a) Sin One: Allowing Mortgage Lending to Become a Casino. b) Allowing Unregulated Bond Rating Agencies to Decide What was Safe. c) Failing to Police Sub-prime. d) Failure to Stop Excess Leverage. e) Failure to Police Conflicts of Interest. f) Failing to Regulate Hedge Funds and Private Equity. g) Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. – TOO BIG TO FAIL, bring the whole system down! Cite: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=seven_deadly_sins_of_deregulation_and_three_necessary_reforms
13) On and on. If you do not like what is said, just yell loud enough to drown it out.

It's is very hard to sit here and second guess why these people felt it necessary to come "Strapped" to a debate on healthcare. Given the proximity of the President to the area, these people are taking a great risk to their own well being. I can assure you that the Secret Service had those people in their sights, literally. I am a big supporter of the right to bear arms, but these people are just plain stupid.

Now reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit because the article discussed why they were carrying guns;

You are right, and I should have modified my statement to say that although why was mentioned in passing, it was not the main point of the article.

Of course the one place it was highlighted was in the original article where it said: "It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe.

So, I guess that we can deduce from the reporting that people are carrying guns to these meetings as a political statement, not just because they have a right to, or need self defense.

Of course you acknowledge this in your first post, and it isn't what I originally had an issue with. Your second post is another story.

I did not imply that America does not have a dictator because of the 2nd Amendment. I was stating that the 2nd Amendment was put into place to allow us to oppose a dictatorship should it ever happen.

Well, to quote you: America is a gun-toting country. That is why we have elected Presidents and not a Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro running our country.

That says that we do not have a dictator because we are a gun-toting country. I doubt if you can prove that. And tossing in a couple of dictators for specific example, that opens up a enough cans of worms to keep an academic busy for an entire career and then some, and distracts from the point that you were trying to make.

It is also questionable that all of our presidents have been elected. :)

2. America's right to bear arms should be given more credibility than being chic.

I agree, and I also think that Isabell was referring to the gun culture more than to the constitutional right. I also think that there are a lot of nuts in the gun culture who give most gun owners a bad name and who are more of a threat to the 2nd Amendment than any government or anti-gun group. You might agree with that since you said: 3. I think carrying guns to an event involving the President was stupid.

I'm tenacious Jerry. Why don't we call a truce.

Sounds like irresistible force meets unmovable object. :)

PS: I was a geology student at FSU almost 40 years ago.

I am amazed how easily we are distracted from the real issue of health reform in this country. It is exactly was the health insurance and pharmicutical corporations want. they do not want the American people to see that while the rest of the country is in a recession, their profits have risen over 400%. They do not want us to talk about people having to declare bankruptcy because they have had to have life-saving operations and either did not have health insurance or were under-insured. We should be discussing those who are forced to use emergency rooms (at a much higher cost) to get routine medical treatment instead of having a primary care physician. All of these things cost the American people because health care costs get higher to cover losses for those who are unable to pay and cannot afford health care. We should be engaging in conversation and debate about the need in this country for true health care reform and not get side tracked by attacking each other.

AMEN! Pamela Eliot, it only took one blogger who managed to misconstrue another blogger's opinion about America's gun culture, and turn into a "Federal Case" of defending, from a non -existent attack, the American constitution and the Right To Bear Arms. And it is still going on. She describes herself as tenacious. Some might call it stubborn, some might say, being a sore looser.

I grew up with "Socialized Medicine" and the medical care I received was par excellence. The fact that my home town, until the begin of World War II had been dubbed the Mecca of Medicine did not hurt a bit. But now the United States has taken a lead, and it is beyond comprehension that million of Americans are medically deprived in this super-rich country.

But I do not think any reform will happen because of the credo PROFIT. It is the 30th US president who was to have said that America's business is business, her only business. But Calvin Coolidge is also recorded as having said "I have never been hurt by something I did not say" Absorbing this wisdom, I shall sign off, or bugger off as we were told to do.

And since we are still on the same thread, Kim Tanksley; I really believe that you have no inking about what you did to me. And sadly enough, no inkling about what you are doing to your own veracity and respect for you. With that "bugger off" I am being facetious, I have used the phrase myself. After all, I have lived in England for some years. But for the rest of it I AIN'T KIDDING.

Pamela - you might want to visit the blog on republicans and end of life counseling further down the list. There you will find some of the debate you are looking for. This blog was on bringing guns to a protest.

Second amendment or not. NO ONE except for security should be allowed to carry weapons to any public official event, Especially a President!

It is a HUGE security issue. A blood bath waiting to happen. This has nothing to do with rights. I see alot of people there who are not dealing with a full deck in these events. It takes only one shot, accident or otherwise to start a civil war.

Why do they feel they need to carry weapons to these events? What are they so afraid off?

I do not believe it is fear that motivates these individuals. I believe they are use to intimidate others.

Our officials have rights too. they have the right to appear in a public forum without fear of reprisal.

In all my years I have never seen anybody carry arms to a presidential event unless they planned to use them. SECURITY need to do their job and secure our officials. NO GUNS TO ANY PUBLIC FORUM!

I grew up with "Socialized Medicine" and the medical care I received was par excellence.

A divergence from the main topic here, but what the hey? I can say that I have considerable experience with both US and Canadian health care models (and a big chunk of my family working in health care), and the Canadian model delivers more accessible and affordable health care for the average person. There are stacks of studies and reports out there backing this up, and most of the ones that do not are tailored hit pieces full of disinformation and disingenuous twisting of stats.

People can compare their health plan to the universal one in BC here: http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/

Unfortunately the Obama plan does not come close to making the kind of health care reforms are needed, and people should be protesting on that ground not on the current mindless fear mongering that typifies the protests that we are seeing.

This article lays out the case for real reform: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23292.htm

Of all of the health care programs that I participated in while in the US, the best was in the Marine Corps. Now if the protesters were asking for an extension of the Naval medical service to the whole country, they might have a good point.

Back to the main topic, sorta. Something interesting that strikes me about these nuts displaying guns at public meetings is the difference between now and the last administration. This one tolerates such antics, in the previous one people were being ejected for wearing tee shirts critical of the administration. Which one shows a greater respect for democracy?

Hello Mr. West... do you sir by any chance have a relative named John in the Salmon canning business? I'm a big fan of their TV commercials.

Hi Bart:

No relative in the salmon canning business. I have a freezer with a bunch of salmon in it, though. We still have a fair amount of salmon where I live, though nothing like in earlier years. I expect commercial salmon fishing will be a thing of the past one of these days.

Regarding this comment: ((The 4th Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”))

a) I'm pretty sure it's the Second Amendment that addresses the gun issue.

b) "Well regulated" is the key phrase here.

regu-late: to control, direct, or govern according to a rule, principal or system. --Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition

Enough said.

Greg

Jerry West, I diverged from the topic to honor Pamela Eliot's post that was off topic. "But what the hey?"

I don't quite understand the guns. A threat? Just acting bad-ass like the little gang snots? Starved for attention? Something to do with health insurance, as in, "hey we're here with guns, how's your coverage?" I'd like to keep idiots with guns away from our President, any President, regardless of party or politics.

I'm not sure I understand this anti-health care reform "army" that has been summoned up by the Republican Talk Radio pukes. Think about what these folks are saying: "I want health coverage, but I want it entirely at the whim of my employer. I want, always, to be one job away from losing my health insurance, and if I do lose my employer-provided coverage, I want to max out my credit cards, burn up my savings and retirement funds to pay on my own. I always want my insurance company to chose my primary care physician, and to instruct my doctor on what medications he or she may prescribe. I want, always, the cheapest of medicine, never the medication my doctor would prescribe for his physician patients, who demand the best and most effective treatment. I want those who, for one reason or another aren't insured, to make hospital emergency rooms their primary care provider. I want to pay big bucks for this."

"Furthermore, I believe American business and industry should be saddled with the responsibility of providing health insurance for employees, while competing in the global marketplace with foriegn companies that bear no such burden."

I don't understand it. And I really don't understand the guns.

Everyone with an understanding of the English language knew that I was not talking about the Constitutional Right To Bear Arms. You did turn my opinion on the prevailing gun culture into something I had never said or implied. And assailing my character seeing myself as victim is not going to change what you did. Besides..victim of whom? You? Don't make me laugh!

"Everyone with an understanding of the English language knew that I was not talking about the Constitutional Right To Bear Arms." (Isabell)

Yes, Isabell so did I; however, I did not like your characterization of gun toting Americans and why you thought they like to tote guns. You were looking at one aspect and I chose to expand it to another aspect of why Americans like to tote guns. Why can't you understand that? I took your idea and expanded upon it. It's my opinion, it's O.K. for me to have and opinion different than yours.

This is what you said, "Gun-toting is the Amerian Way. Look at our pistol-packing- mama with presidential aspirations. It's so chic for gals, so virile for guys." That seemed narrow minded to me so I expanded saying it is more than being chic. I know you were not talking about the right to bear arms. I was. Get it?! Not all Americans tote guns for show. Some of us find deep meaning in the ability to own and in some cases carry guns. I wanted to put that out there too. It's O.K. if I want to do that. It is O.K. for me to have a different opinion than you on American gun culture.

As for the victim thing. It is the next step that you always pull when someone disagrees with you. I was just putting it out there for you to save you time. I've never done anything to you Isabell so of course you could not be my victim. In fact we all have been wondering who you've been a victim of all this time. Reread your own posts using your acute understanding of the English language and maybe you can see your own work come to life as to your victim status.

Now this is getting embarrassing, I hate the weakness of getting pulled into a bickering match. Just leave me alone and that includes my personal email. You get even nastier when you don't have a public audience. Yah people, I know, I know... I'm the bad guy...

Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm not sure what the big fuss is about the guns. Were they illegal? Were they brandished in a threatening way? Were they shot? No, apparently they were just visible. Would it make everyone feel better if those guns had been concealed?

The real kicker about that article is, leave it to the anti gun media, the photo of the spent case is 7.62X39 used around the world in light shoulder weapons. To my knowledge such a weapon was not used in the course of this incident by either side. Oh me oh my, some unbiased news journalist pulled a picture out of the photo archive to shock the ignorant among its subscribers, can you believe that would happen in a news story today?

One offensive advantage perpetrators had on the officers was a front seat with numerous loaded handguns at the ready.

The officers defensive disadvantage was evidenced by the fact they were shot at close range with partially loaded cylinders. Enough to stop an immediate threat, but not interrupted to deploy.

Critical review following this incident triggered an evolution in patrol procedure that is ongoing. The officers did not loose their lives in vain, lessons that could only be learned this way save officers lives daily.

"Just leave me alone and that includes my personal email. You get even nastier when you don't have a public audience." (Kim Tanksley)

OK here is my email made public. I guess my being discreet was not appreciated.
===================================================================================

Kim Tanksley I am not going to embarrass you on the blog. But facts are that I was always puzzled by your harping away on your blue collar back ground. But in spite of your often usage of gutter language and your callous and hard hearted attitude concerning the plight of the needy (they should suck it up) I believed that you had class. I was wrong. And overestimating your social skills was my mistake, and I am now sucking it up. The recent posts are living proof that more bloggers share my views about the gun culture than they share yours. Is that what bothers you. The green eyed monster? Something else is obvious by now, how you pander to male bloggers only. Nobody sees me as a sweet little old lady, but see me as what I am....an intellectual. Even your ex the deeply disturbed [deleted] can't shake my influence. My daughter had made the comment that if I lie down with dogs I must expect to get up with fleas. I thought that she was being overly critical, a shared shortcoming of the baby boomers. But maybe she has more race wisdom than I do in that respect. I do not wish you well I do not wish you harm, but I finally get the message and I shall bugger off. And accept it, I am very secure in my being, secure in my self worth. No victim complex.
======================================================================================
And don't ever challenge without expeting the challenge to be met. And I hope this is the end of it. Harping back and forth like fish wives is demeaning, and a big bore to the un-invloved.

Isabell Lawson

Sounds like a deal Isabell. Now excuse me while I scratch the flees in my blue collar while you stroke your blue blood ego.

Hey it's the american way. That's the way we like it. After all, the purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves againts our government in case they get any stupid ideas.

I am for full gun rights but bringing guns to political meetings is asinine and Security should call the shots.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gun-sales23-2009aug23,0,4831409.story

I tried to find the "Cash for Guns" discussion here, maybe it wasn't. Thought this might be interesting to some. If it is not, then in the future, at your request, I'll yield space to your favorite topic without comment(downtown botoxation, parking, high speed rail, legalized dope, whatever.)