Norman, as a matter of fact I have noticed that. Frankly I'm not sure why others have not. Even though the president is well received by CNN he is certainly not on CBS, Fox and a few others. In fact, he takes a beating every single morning from the "Early Show" on CBS. Just like anything else, when someone is wrong they often have a difficult time admitting it. This I would say is one of those cases.

Sounds to me like your creative side or perhaps your inner real self is searching (grasping to stir the pot??) for anything to explain your point that I think you're trying to make with an utmost political correctness delivery. ....Now if I am on the right track, and perhaps I am not, but if so, you may as well make your comment applicable to every news story today....That way I am certain your point will be congruent with the report's underlying message, Mr. Brown. If I had to grade whether your point works vis a vie this article, this "glove doesn't fit, you should just quit." Yeah I changed that famous quote to make it more a suggestion vs a directive. And to answer your question: "no Sir, I have not noticed commercials with monkeys and not once caught the word bullet in conjunction with Mr. Obama....whom I assume you are referring to, hence president." Typically I am more direct with my thoughts but if I read something that says one thing, but may have ulterior meaning, well I will adapt to speak in similar tongue...

Is Mr. O taking a beating because...just maybe....HE IS DOING A LOUSY JOB!!!!

For a long time fox was the only network beating up on Obama...bottom line is that he is failing to lead this country...he did get a tough job handed to him...but at the end of the day he is NOT the man to lead this country back to greatness!

My follow up if my creative side had not ran amok....What does your comment have to do with Chicks with Guns article? The only correlation of a word that remotely fits is the word "bullit." But I have not heard bullit, president in the same sentence, but then again, I don't know of anyone that would use the two words together....or not since Ronald Regan was shot. But what do I know...I live in a bubble I guess. Is a monkey a euphemism for another object...Like maybe a clown would be?? I don't know...I wasted too much time nonetheless. But perhaps if you said what you mean, then a cultural perhaps disconnect would not have occured here with me...Maybe I should read the entire article....was there a follow up to this book? Monkey Gun Commercials?

I do not agree with the policy of Obama, but I have to agree that he has not been well received since his initial announcement. Just look at the comments from his LA speech recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlFYw22SXvM&feature=player_embedded

No one deserves that kind of abuse. Especially the president of the united states.

If you don't see that, you probably have your blinders on.

I get tired of everyone thinking they can do a better job then Obama. He may not be perfect but let's see anyone do better. He has only had 3 years to undo what the Bush boys started and look at what they did. They put the majority of the Supreme court in place leaving a legacy of people to carry on their wishes no matter who is in office. They usurped more power from the other two executive branches than any other 5 presidents combined, and Jr. took a 4 trillion debt and put us in debt to the tune of 11 trillion, and Bush is the one who put the stimulus package into place and signed it through before Obama took office. Give the guy a break, no one can fix a problem that big in 4 years. I am not even a liberal and I know this much. Everyone bitching and moaning needs to quit reading stories and do some research, teach yourself something before you speak.

As for the monkey and bullet comment??????????????? I noticed that commercials with monkeys have increased but did you ever think that it may be because we have had 2 great movies recently about monkeys.. Planet of the Apes and the Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

@Norman - I'm assuming that you intentionally mean to dismiss the glut of "monkey" and "chimp" stuff when GWBush was the President when you make this "observation" about the increase of monkey commercials during Obama's reign?

The only Monkeys I see are the ones in office (politicians)...total monkey business.

Just out of curiousity,

What exactly do all these politically based comments have to do with this article? Is it possible for all of you politically driven drones to actually stay on topic just once? Take the political commentary somewhere else please. This article is not about politics and some of us would prefer to NOT hear about politics once in awhile.

As for the article itself, it doesn't surprise me that a lot of women own guns. It also doesn't surprise me that they have a wide range of reasons for owning them. People will own the exact same thing for totally different reasons. That is part of human nature.

Personally, I think it is great that so many women own guns and they use them for more than self defense. I think it's great that so many of them use them because they enjoy using them.

I also can't help loving the fact that it totally destroys the sterotype that only certain types of people like guns.

AMEN! I was just thinking the same thing! Incidentally have now forgot what my comment was going to be hahahahaa.

What is so strange or news worthy nabout women owning guns? It's been going on for a lot longer than most of us have even been alive. As for all the political rhetoric, give it a rest. This article is about women and guns, not obama and his failures.

I have to agree. I owned a gun long before it became fashionable. Women used guns on the frontier, during wars, etc. etc.

It truly is a strange new world when someone can see some clandestine under tone of racism in a commerical with a monkey in it. LOL. I swear to God whats wrong with people! Scott did a wonderful and extremley well written job of being as vague in answering the question as it was posed...but really? Monkey's on television offend you Norman? Better take a sign and march in protest in front of the "animal planet studio and certainly boycotte the Mutual of Omaho insurance agency! How dare those racist...wild kingdom demeaning monkey lovin bastards even ask you to buy a policy!LOL.

In a recession some people who are unsettled or even unhinged often look for security. Doesn't help but they may feel it does. They also seek out someone to blame. None of it has to be logical, it just is.

norman Brown-4155621

Have you noticed lately , there are more commercials with monkeys in them lately? "Seriously" , and more commentators using the word bullet when preferring to the president, is there anything behind these commercials and phrases?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, there's a monkey somewhere gunning for the President?

It would be wonderful if that beautiful elk pictured on the cover of this book were still alive, instead of having been murdered and exploited for profit.

mozzie

Elk is good eating and MUCH better for you than Beef. You should try it.

‘Chicks with Guns’: Some 15 million US women pack heat"

Your Damn Right I "pack". Have for 15 years, and Yes, I have my CHL.

Nobody knows it though, I don't flaunt the weapon when in public.

Point of order.................one cannot "murder" an elk........."murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being......... (source: Black's Law Dictionary)................

imbeciles with keyboards.....

Wouldn't it be wonderful if that beautiful elk pictured on the cover of this book were still alive, instead of having been murdered and exploited for profit.

Murdered and exploited for profit? Whether you want to accept it or not it is the “murder and exploitation” of these animals that provides millions of dollars every year used to preserve their habitats, study them and fight diseases that may infect them. Aside from that most deer and their relatives in the US would starve off if they weren’t hunted. Try getting a clue, you don’t have to like it but you do have to accept reality.

From the looks of the pictures in the article, am I correct to assume that only sexy babes carry guns?

NO....if your ugly A$$ wants to pack heat...then bring it sister....plus a gun makes any woman look sexy. Besides, ugly people dont sell....i know this for a fact...haven't sold a damn thing in my life.

Toosano said:

"am I correct to assume that only sexy babes carry guns?"

Regarding me, men find me very attractive, and I hunt boar with a .357 mag. pistol. I like the thrill. My husband and brothers and dogs corner and surround the boar and then I get on my knees, crawl in, and take the head shot.

I always donate the pork to a local food bank. Yes, I butcher it too.

Boars are a big problem where I live.

Amusing how an article on women who own guns is now some wierd kind of commentary on Obama, monkeys and an ad campaign. Talk about off topic.

Back to topic: women owning guns. Most of the women I know have a gun or two and they know how to use them. I live in the country, there are rattlesnakes and coyotes and a few other kinds of critters that sometimes need to be killed. Frontier women had guns & knew how to use them. They serve a purpose and should be handled intelligently.

Most of the women that I know who own guns do so for personal protection. I have seen far too many really ghastly incidents of violence to be real sanguine about the capacity of the species for committing violence. I don't flash my gun around, I don't play with it or pretend it makes me tough, I just know it's there and I will use it if I have no other option.

Sean-336944

Start your own paranoid thread on the tie-in between Obama and women gun owners.

You make me laugh!

Backcountry: it is the “murder and exploitation” of these animals that provides millions of dollars every year used to preserve their habitats...and fight diseases,

BS. Your argument is specious and self-serving. Reality is that mankind has encroached on these migratory animals' habitats so much so that it has been reduced to almost nothing, and they are forced into small confines. If it weren't for people who arrogantly call themselves "sportsmen" (when the actual label is: killers), we wouldn't have to study elk diseases because there wouldn't be any. Don't tell me we are helping these creatures. We are not.

Sissyphys: Your dictionary is wrong.

@mozzie-600

Reality is that mankind has encroached on these migratory animals' habitats so much so that it has been reduced to almost nothing,

And you blame this on hunters?

If it weren't for people who arrogantly call themselves "sportsmen" (when the actual label is: killers), we wouldn't have to study elk...

...because without hunters there might not be any Elk left. As you said, we have encroached upon their land. Fees from hunting liceneses help to provide habitat through land lease programs and states purchasing and maintaining prime land.

Don't tell me we are helping these creatures. We are not.

Like I said, whether you want to accept it or not. The facts are on my side however- http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr219.pdf

Guns should not be universally banned, nor should all concealed carry permits. That being said, this is what I don't get...

1. The "guns protect us from the government" argument. Perhaps they did at one time, but since about the 1940's I would assume that unless you have an airforce and soldiers trained to be on par with Seals/Rangers/Spec Ops, every citizen in the country could own a gun, and it wouldn't matter. Nor can you use Afganistan/Iraq as an argument to counter this point. They might be picking us off, but they are far from overthrowing our goverment. It's more pure exhaustion and high expenses that are killing us, as well as nation building, not so much hand guns. And even if you do suceed in taking down the U.S. government, you do realize that chaos would rule, right? It would basically mean the collapse of the world economy.

2. The "self defense" argument. First, if you are a law abiding citizen your odds of being in a situation where you can legally use a gun to defend yourself are slim to none. As evidence, I point to all the people in the world who never own a gun, and do just fine. Second, if you think carrying one is a reasonable precaution, then why don't you walk around in latex gloves and surgical masks? You're soooo much more likely to die of an infectious disease, and gloves/masks are also a reasonable precaution.

3. The "crime prevention" argument. The vast majority of crimes are spontaneous and comitted from either shear desperation, or extreme emotion. The criminal very rarely spends any time planning. I can not see, "Research gun control laws in the area" showing up on any criminal's To Do Before Committing A Crime list. Therefore, I don't see how people claim that "If the criminal thinks you might be carrying we won't attack you." I guarentee you, ask any psychologist, they will tell that thought is not anywhere in the criminal mind.

4. The "(Insert random object here) kills more people" argument. Yes, more people are killed by, let's say cars. However, more people drive/ride/encounter cars. This argument would work for the pro-gun position, only if you also wore a helmet and body armor (so as to protect you in the unfortunate case of a car accident) as well as carried your gun. Also, cars in today's society are pretty much necessary, unless you live in a large metropolitan area. Also, a hand gun, by its very nature is intended with no other purpose and invented solely to harm human beings. I'm not sure, but I don't think you could place any random obect into this argument that is on par with that.

5. The "Constitution" argument. First, and I know I'm generalizing here, most 2nd amendment supporters are right leaning. As are most who support obviously unconstitutional laws like DOMA. I find this hypocrisy that the 2nd amendment is untouchable, but we can piss on the rest of it attitude frustrating. Either you take my standpoint that, the constitution is more fluid and under the test of strict scruitiny may be amended (after all they did right an entire section about how to amend it), or you say, no way can we bend it in any way, shape, or form. When this amendment was written, there were no guns on par with what we have today. There were no police forces. We didn't have 911 and instant access to trained professionals. We didn't live all crammed together in cities and suburbs. We hadn't killed off all the wild life. We didn't have radar to detect invading forces. Things change, the father's knew this. Gun control is really the only thing I can come up with that would pass strict scrutiny, yet it seems like it has the most vehement opposition.

6. The "guns make us safer" argument. Someone up there, made the comment that a concealed carrier would've stopped this guy. Really? Then explain why all the mass shootings we've had in America, haven't been taken out by one? Loughner, for starters. Also, anyone who thinks some untried person is going to be able to pull a gun under those circumstances and amidst all that chaos, and perfectly take out a rampage killer with a single shot, has been watching wayyyyyy too many movies. Sure, if an off duty cop/soldier was concealed carrying they may pull it off, but remember I never said all concealed carry permits should be banned.

Here's what I think. I do a lot of things that could get me killed. Like leaving my house in the morning. I could take a lot more reasonable precautions. I could douse my hands with sanitizer everytime I touch something, I could wear protective body armor... But I don't, because I know two things. Bad sh$*% happens regardless of all the precautions in the world, and I will die one day anyway.

Sarah: The first thing Hitler did was confiscate the firearms, wonder why? Mexicans aren't allowed to own guns, take a gander at what's happening there. The odds of someone messing with an unarmed person are far greater than someone messing with someone with a gun.

When Maj Hasan killed all those soldiers at Ft. Hood, he was shooting unarmed men and women. Note that he was taken down with someone with a gun. As to what you do that can get you killed, yup but sometimes it helps to even the odds.

Mygirl,

You didn't answer any of the elements laid out within the arguments, you simply restated them. That doesn't make them any more true. Look at 1, 2, and 3, again, and respond when you can do more then just state something.

For example, I said that most crimes are spontaneous, if so, how do maintain this standpoint...

The odds of someone messing with an unarmed person are far greater than someone messing with someone with a gun.

Sure, if the criminal planned his strategy, researched who concealed carried...

1. It still is a protection against a tyrannical government,, however, you are correct about citizens standing against a trained force. What you don't know, is that many firearm owners seek out professional training that is on par with or in some cases better than law enforcement and the military, at little research will support this. Chaos would not rule, law abiding citizens believe in the rule of law and wouldn't stand for anything else! And many within the military would stand with us, it is their duty to uphold and defend the constitution above all else!

2. Evidence,what evidence? Do your own research and you will see that firearms are used in self defense daily in this country, it just doesn't get reported by the MSM!!! And those people most of the time are not charged with a crime, your reasoning on this one is faulty! Most states have laughs regarding the use of deadly force, do some research, it is legal to use a gun in self defense, however, in public you may have a duty to retreat, the use of force is always a final option, when no others exist!

3. Because criminals prey on the weak, if they think you are armed, they are less likely to attack you. This has been researched through interviews with criminals.

4. Why not, it is true. A gun is an object, a tool nothing more, it doesn't kill anyone, it must be manipulated by a human being to kill anyone or thing!

5. You are generalizing, because there are just as many left leaning gun owners in America! Also, most of us who point to the constitution also don't support any laws or over reaching power grabs by anyone in our government, if it isn't in our founding document or hasn't been addressed by an amendment then it isn't constitutional, it is that simple! And you obviously haven't research our founders, they new the future held the unknown, which as you say, is why the gave us the means to alter the document. If gun control laws should be allowed by your reasoning, what happens to the 1st? Many in power now would like to trash that one as well, bet you wouldn't want that to happen!

6. The majority of these mass shootings happen in "gun free zones" like schools ( you can not legally carry onto school property, it is against the law, and permit holders are as a group very law abiding. As far as Arizona shooting goes, there was a concealed carrier there, and he didn't pull his weapon at first because of the chaos that ensued. We are responsible for where that bullet ends up, so considering those around you is equally important aspect of concealed carry.

1. So are you making the claim that our handguns are the only protection we have, and that without them our leaders (who are elected by us) would shred the Consitution? That implies some sort of conspiracy. Who are these folks that want to destroy our way of life? Especially, when to do so would be at their own detriment. Afterall, if you destroy the constitution, you destroy the power the government has, ergo the people you claim we need guns to protect our Constitution from are the same people who would lose the most from it's destruction.

2. Take your own advice. You say to do my own research, but you've provided me with nothing except your opinion of MSM and some assertions. Proposed House Bill 5143 in my state's Legislature, clearly lays out that the reasonable belief that you are going to be killed is necessary to use deadly force in self defense. I didn't claim anything else. I said, that law abiding citizens, very rarely find themselves fighting for their lives against criminals. My point is you are much more likely to die of infectious disease, however you don't find it necesarry to walk around in latex gloves and a mask. Why is that?

3. Researched through interviews and studies by who? You only have a point if you assume all crime and criminals are rational, and therefore you only apply to the criminological theory of Rational Choice to explain all crimes. When you look at modern criminology however, you see that in actuallity a hybrid mix of Control Theories, Labeling Theories, Sub-Cultural Theories, et. al, show this to be untrue and way to simplistic. You also have to look at victimology. Shooting someone in self defense is way easier to type, than it is to do.

4. You said it yourself, a gun is a tool. My point is, a gun is a tool whose sole function is to kill. There is no object you can insert into that original number four argument, whose only purpose is to kill. Yes, cars kill more people, but there only purpose isn't killing.

5. Yes, I am generalizing and I said that. If you are the exception then pay no attention. However, it is not that simple as you put it. Amendments 9 and 10 for example, state that just because something isn't in the consitution, that doesn't mean you don't have a right to it, i.e. privacy. What happens to the 1st, you ask? The same thing that's happened to it everytime we've amended or reinterpretted the Consitution. Did you miss the part in my original number five about strict scrutiny? That's the SCOTUS test for Constitutionality. My point is, not to take the 2nd out, but perhaps it's time re-interpret.

7. Mass shootings don't account for the majority of people killed by guns. So where they take place is relevant, but not the point I was really trying to make. I heard a similar story about AZ, however mine ended in him pulling it and almost killing the wrong person. And again, I never said all guns or concealed carry should be banned. Your argument here assumes everyone who carrys a gun, being able to not only physically make the shot, but psychologically deal with chaos. Mine grants that, sometimes that will be true, however, not all the time.

Sarah: The bottom line is if you chose not to own a gun, that is your choice. If I chose to own a gun, that is my choice. I see your arguments as a means of banning weapons, reinterpreting the constitution to suit an agenda, well, what's the point of having a constitution?

As to rationality of criminality, opportunity often plays a role here. Also, there are as many reasons for criminal behaviour as there are criminals. Note that the murder and violence in Britain is perpetrated by knives, bats, bricks, and just about anything that comes to hand. Are you prepared to legislate against unpredicted violent behaviour? There are laws that do just that, unfortunately, when the police are called into a situation it is generally after the fact.

Facts is that there are lots of crazy folks, criminal folks, diseases and accidents out there, so, shall we live in fear? Or shall we take sensible precautions?

My girl,

Read the very first line of my original post. Also, we have interpretted and re-interpretted the Consitution since it's inception It was either Franklin or Jefferson who wanted us to re-write it every 10 years, because he assumed it would be obsolete.

To me, sensible precautions don't equal guns. If that's your standpoint, then please answer this...You are much more likely to die of infectious disease, however you don't find it necesarry to walk around in latex gloves and a mask. Why is that?

Sarah, there are more reasons to be armed than personal protection; that is but one. Natural disaster, man-made disaster, attack by another entity, needing to keep our own government straight--uh.........not too many citizens of North Korea are armed.

Beach,

First, I wish I was also at a beach. Second, that's just part of my position/argument, if you read post #1.32, I lay it all out.

Sarah,

1) the tyranny arugement. First, it doesn't matter because it will probably never come to this. However, how many members of our military will kill other American civilians when ordered? There, the military being used against the citizens just dropped from 1 million to 100,000 people as many defect. As for the remainder, if you knew anything about guns or people you would realize that the US gov could never do anything by force against us. We would crush them. Picture military driving down the road and couple of people shoot from the bushes. Yeah you kill a couple of military men, but moral goes down, more of them defect, and even if they catch the two guys shooting at them, there are 60 million more gun owners out there.

2) Self defense. A person carrying a gun for self defense can legally use it almost anywhere. Google "armed citizen" and see the collection of thousands of news articles from across country that this group has been gathering that shows cases of individual citizens using guns in self defense.

3) Deterrence. You are blind to human behavior. It is extremely well known that burglars in this country purposely do their work during daytime while people are out. They scout the house, try to make sure nobody is home, and break in. As stated by someone else, criminals do thing about this. Visit Dept of Justice website and you can see criminal statistics and massive amounts of other research. Interviews with criminals even indicate that they would rather be caught by police than regular citizen with a gun. They also would rather be assaulted by another criminal without a gun than by a citizen with a gun.

4) This point doesn really matter. Guns give people the ability to effectively defend themselves. Unfortunately bad people take advantage of others if they can. When they try to take advantage of someone who is weaker they often succeed. When they try to take advantage of someone with a gun, they probably learn a lesson. Individual self defense concepts are no different than defense of groups or nations. Do you think slavery would have been possible if the ships arrived in Africa only to be shot to hell if every African owned a gun and came to the rescue?

5) Forget the Constitution. Even without it, guns should still be legal and plentiful. Forget about "god given rights." Every single human being on the planet should be allowed to stand up for themself and practice self defense with a gun. The aggressors that use force against an innocent person will never stop and they don't care of have respect for other people's lives. Force is almost never ok, unless someone initiates force against you. Clearly best method is a gun.

6) Assuming you cannot get rid of all guns, which we know cannot happen, then we must keep them. I feel strongly that if only criminals had guns, we would be worse off. Based on other evidence in society, such as Prohibition and failed war on drugs, my keen mind tells me that it is impossible to get rid of guns, therefore I will keep mine. Again, see armed citizen for countless stories of innocents using guns for self defense.

It is people like you that prevent us from being even safer. If honest gun carrying population was even much higher we would be living like kings. Even situations like Laughner would be more easily taken care of.

Sarah, might I suggest shortening your posts for those of us with short attention spans? :)

John,

Wow, People like me? I didn't know you knew me so well. It's statements like that which makes it hard for me to get on the 2nd amendment train.

1. This is naive...

that the US gov could never do anything by force against us. We would crush them

What you've failed to tell me is why our government would want to do this. Who are these people, which by the way we elect, who are plotting to change our way of life, or who would if they could. Especially, when to do so would be at their own detriment. Afterall, if you destroy the constitution, you destroy the power the government has, ergo the people you claim we need guns to protect our Constitution from are the same people who would lose the most from it's destruction.

2. Proposed House Bill 5143 in my state's Legislature, clearly lays out that the reasonable belief that you are going to be killed is necessary to use deadly force in self defense. I didn't claim anything else. I said, that law abiding citizens, very rarely find themselves fighting for their lives against criminals. My point is you are much more likely to die of infectious disease, however you don't find it necesarry to walk around in latex gloves and a mask. Why is that?

3.Statistics give numbers, not motivations. Nor do they look at the indivual personality traits or sociology regarding both criminals and victims. You only have a point if you assume all crime and criminals are rational, and therefore you only apply to the criminological theory of Rational Choice to explain all crimes. When you look at modern criminology however, you see that in actuallity a hybrid mix of Control Theories, Labeling Theories, Sub-Cultural Theories, et. al, show this to be untrue and way to simplistic. You also have to look at victimology. Shooting someone in self defense is way easier to type, than it is to do.

4. Again, they only learn a lesson if all criminals are rational. I don't see crackheads as rational, do you? The point of this argument is to show that when people say, "cars are more dangerous then guns" they are only on point if you also suggest we where helmets to protect ourselves from crashes.

5. Again, read the very first line of my very first post and tell me who is coming to take away my God given rights, and why they are attempting to. It goes back to the question in bold face about why not wear latex gloves and surgical masks then? The threat of disease is bigger, and there's no possible harm that come from wearing gloves. It seems like this whole issue is wrapped up in that threat of harm, but there are greater threats that people can address through reasonable means, yet don't.

I don't see guns as the way to a kingly existance. Life will never be truly secure, but instead of focusing on weaponry, what would happen if the NRA devoted all that time, effort, and money into poverty or education? For the first half of my early 20's I worked as an in-home social worker in Detroit. I was on call 24 hours a day. That means, I was going into the worst neighborhoods, in the most dangerous city in the U.S. at night, by myself. The worst thing that ever happened was my hub caps got stolen, which certainly is not something I would've shot the perpetrator over. The odds are, and this is undeniable as evidenced by the millions of citizens who never even own a gun, let alone have to use one, that you probably won't ever need one.

Beach,

I try, that's why I do the numbers, lol. I just like getting it all out there so I don't forget.

Sarah- I agree with much of your comment. The NRA is a junk yard dog. It howls at shadows and keeps its owners anxious 24/7. The NRA and its rantings have caused the price of guns and ammo to sky rocket. The wolf cryers are fear mongering scum in my opinion.

Thanks Tactical! It's not the "gun" that I think I have the issue with, it's the false arugments and fear perpetuated by some of the 2nd amendment supporters and NRA.

Self defense is not a false argument Sarah.

Try as you may.

The number of crimes committed by crackheads, who I would agree are not necessarily acting rationally while high, is small. There are thousands of crimes committed daily by people who are thinking about their crimes. Criminals are not much different from us. We go about our business weighing decisions daily. Do I go out to eat, or save money, etc, etc. Criminals think, should I do this crime, can I get away with it, are the risks worth the reward.

It is funny that you claim you can't use statistics to show behavior. Obviously not in every case, but they provide at least an average picture of the situation.

Sarah-3043284 stated:

"it's the false arugments and fear perpetuated by some of the 2nd amendment supporters and NRA."

Do You pick and choose which amendment You want to live by, or allow others of this Nation to live by?

Stop it Sarah! Do you want to start repealing amendments that Our Founding Fathers so wisely scripted, just to satisfy your personal view or bias?

I've read all your posts above and what I've concluded is everything You've said boils down to is: its only "YOUR OPINION" and bias.

But, You know what, that's OKAY.

I disagree with You, and that's okay too!

That right to express ones self is a protected right also: or do You want to limit that too?

Respect to your opinion. You're a smart 'cookie'. We could be friends.

We differ though on this topic.

Read my posts above.

Leiya & Jon,

5. Yes, I am generalizing and I said that. If you are the exception then pay no attention. However, it is not that simple as you put it. Amendments 9 and 10 for example, state that just because something isn't in the consitution, that doesn't mean you don't have a right to it, i.e. privacy. What happens to the 1st, you ask? The same thing that's happened to it everytime we've amended or reinterpretted the Consitution. Did you miss the part in my original number five about strict scrutiny? That's the SCOTUS test for Constitutionality. My point is, not to take the 2nd out, but perhaps it's time re-interpret.

5. The "Constitution" argument. First, and I know I'm generalizing here, most 2nd amendment supporters are right leaning. As are most who support obviously unconstitutional laws like DOMA. I find this hypocrisy that the 2nd amendment is untouchable, but we can piss on the rest of it attitude frustrating. Either you take my standpoint that, the constitution is more fluid and under the test of strict scruitiny may be amended (after all they did right an entire section about how to amend it), or you say, no way can we bend it in any way, shape, or form. When this amendment was written, there were no guns on par with what we have today. There were no police forces. We didn't have 911 and instant access to trained professionals. We didn't live all crammed together in cities and suburbs. We hadn't killed off all the wild life. We didn't have radar to detect invading forces. Things change, the father's knew this. Gun control is really the only thing I can come up with that would pass strict scrutiny, yet it seems like it has the most vehement opposition.

Those are from two of my posts above, that argue the constitution point. All your concerns are addressed in them.

They are my opinions, and I'm trying to understand why some people seem to be fanatical about this. Not saying that you are, but some are. I find it interesting and I truly want to understand the issue better.

The contradiction that confuses me about this is what I stated above, and no one has addressed for me...

You are much more likely to die of infectious disease, however you don't find it necesarry to walk around in latex gloves and a mask. Why is that?

I feel like this is the crux of my issue here. As I said, it's not so much the gun ownership, or even the gun, as it is the wholes I find in the arguments that some supporters so tightly cling to.

John,

You cannot subscribe to the argument that a gun is a reasonable deterrent to a logical threat without advocating that I wear surgical masks and latex gloves, or a helmet and body armor. Those are just as reasonable, if not more so, deterrents to greater threats, like accidents or disease.

Again, you haven't addressed the issue of who the victim is. Completely law abiding people rarely encounter violent crime to such an extent that deadly force is justified. So you would have to do the following to get the real statistic...

Look at all the victims of violent crime.

Subtract the number of victims who weren't completly innocent or random.

Subtract the number where the crimes were violent, but not life threatening.

Subtract the number where a gun would have been useless anyway, such as being caught in a drive by shooting. Afterall, you're looking at self defense, not vigilantism. If you're caught in a shooting like that, you're either dead or or injured before you even know what happened. The time to grab your gun and defend yourself is never even given to you.

Subtract the number where the situation was such that a gun wasn't the only way to successfully protect yourself. Afterall, if I have the feasible option of running away or calling for help and hiding, why would I choose to physically confront someone.

Then the number you have left is the number of people who actually needed a gun to protect themself.

Sarah,

I don't need to do any of that.

There are plenty of situations where having a gun is useful and where a person can use it to defend themselves "in time." For example....during 4/16 shooting at VT (I work there) it would have been possible for someone to barricade themselves and use a gun if necessary. Cho, systematically went to 4 classrooms all on one hallway killing students. One might argue that students in classroom number 1 were all goners (although they were not), but you cannot argue that the students in rooms 2, 3, or 4 would not have been able to use a gun effectively. If they closed and barricaded the doors as best they could, which they did, and someone is trying to shoot their way in, then a person inside with a gun could have laid in wait and when Cho came in he would have been shot.

I fear a violent person coming into my house when I am at peace, messing me all up and leaving me for dead. If that is less likely than catching a disease and dying then so be it. I am obviously not as scared of diseases than I am of being beaten to death.

You wanna go back and forth on this forever? Fact is that bad people will always have guns. When you figure out a way to prevent that then maybe some honest folks will turn theirs in too. I will still keep mine for sport/hobby though :)

Stop saying that regular citizens don't encounter violence. Google "armed citizen" and start reading.

Btw....I am with you on retreating when possible. In fact, most state laws indicate that the innocent person must retreat if possible. I don't ever plan on running towards hell (shooting situation) if I can go around it or away from it.

Furthermore, studies indicate that there are a significant number of "defensive gun uses" in the US every year. Clinton justice dept study indicated approx 100,000 per year. Other scientists estimates are as high as 2.5 million DGUs per year. Even if the higher numbers are way off, and the Clinton DOJ study holds at 100,000 that is major.

There are approx 13,000 (another 17,000 suicides) gun deaths per year along with many wounded. However there are at least 100,000 positive uses each year, and that is just civilian use, not including police.

For the record, I have never been a victim of violent crime. However, if someone ever puts a gun to my face, regardless of whether or not I have a gun, they will not be getting anything from me without killing me. It may be stupid, but I will take one for the team (society that is). I will stand up to the criminal and show them that their day will not be easy. I know in my heart that if a significant portion of the population behaved in this manor, many criminals would find another line of work because it would be too difficult and not worth the risk.

I never said that citizens don't encounter violence, they absolutley do. But to say that, without looking and analyzing all types of violence, and victims, is to paint a skewed picture. You have to look at each scenario individually, in order to look at this logically, instead of just saying "violence happens" and "guns can stop it."

The girl who has too much to drink and her boyfriend goes to far.

The person who's robbed at gun point.

The kid who mouthes off and gets his as(%8 beat.

All victims of violent crime, and I truly and deeply sympathize with them, but adding a gun would be neither the best deterrent nor the best response. These criminals don't necessarily want their victims dead and we have a justice system in place, that while not perfect, is mostly competant. Hand to hand combat with someone who wants you dead, yes, I get that a gun would be handy, if you knew the attack was coming and you had the psychological balls to use it.

Like I said, I have no real issue with the gun, per se, but I think it's the umbrella terms, skewed arguments, and fear mongering that causes our issues.

If we crack down a bit harder on purchases at gun shows; If we do a yearly lisensing with guns like we do with cars; If you have to take a class that includes self defense law and criminology every five years or so; Our Constitution will not be shredded, our government will not enslave us, and we will not all end up victims of some horrible violent crime. We have to do these things for all sorts of purposes, driving, jobs, pretty much anything where our negligence might cause harm to fellow citizens. Why is it only a big deal when it comes to guns?

And again...

You are much more likely to die of infectious disease, however you don't find it necesarry to walk around in latex gloves and a mask. Why is that?

I agree, I personally believe that gun controll is using both hands lol. On a serious note there are several laws on gun controll. There are not nearly enough laws on car controll if you buy a car there is no waiting period or back ground check unless you count a credit check. on the day that this government outlaws guns I will be an outlaw

You are much more likely to die of infectious disease, however you don't find it necesarry to walk around in latex gloves and a mask. Why is that?

Because I arm my body with good food and vitamins. I take aspirin and medicines to boost my immune system. I arm my cells to defend themselves against the crimes of infection.

You are right on Mac!

Ditto Dave...mac called it....

I thought the article was about women who pack heat and like to go to the firing range? I took my wife to the pistol range one time and she got dressed up and wore stilletos heels. Talk about hot, I was impressed. She not only looking sexy but she was putting all the rounds dead center with my Taurus PT92AF 9mm pistol. I told her that she could be a "Bond Girl" for sure.

I thought this was about Women with guns...the one with the Rugar Black Hawk was HOT, HOT, HOT!!! All that said, my Wife out fishes me and I think she out shoots me too, but one thing about this is that those Muslims that want to come over here and turn us into Sharia law...tough luck dudes...our women are heavily armed also and they shoot at places you don't want them to aim at...get my meaning?

By the way...why is it that everything we all talk about, is about Obamma or Bush or whatever...can we stay on point?

I read a joke recently that touched on this very topic.

A little old lady was driving down the road when a cop pulled her over for speeding. As he took her information, he noticed that she had a concealed weapons permit.

The police officer asked her "Ma'am, do you have any concealed weapons in your car?"

The lady smiled and nodded. "Oh yes. I have a .45 in glove compartment, a 9mm in the console and a .38 under my seat."

The cop looked at her in surprise and said "What are you afraid of ma'am?"

She just laughed and said "Absolutely nothing."

One of the most fitting jokes I've ever heard.

When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.

Glock 11 mm and Double Tap ammo, place two in center mass and let the Coroner take your problem away.

Glock 11 mm. What the heck is that? Did you mean 11.48 ? (.45 cal ? )

Sorry typo should read "Glock 20 10mm auto"

Idaho Dragon,

Great joke. Thank you for the out-loud chuckle. I'm an old lady with two guns and I'm not afraid of anything either. I'll definitely be repeating the joke at bridge club. (We all have guns, we're all retired, we're all over 60 and we do go to the range together)

The little old lady next door told me a story of how a criminal had broken into her house one night while her husband was away and she caught him attempting to steal some of her stuff. She was carrying a WW2 era M1 Carbine and pulled the bolt back. She made the criminal call the police on himself and he said, "please hurry this woman is about to blow my brains out." The local police came to pick the guy up and they were laughing at the criminal and telling him how lucky he was because they had seen her at the local firing range and she was very effective with that M1.

Unfortunately, you might be a little disengaged on that point. Not only is there always some comment that walks so close to the "race line" it is unbelievable, there have been situations where folk have taken loaded guns to rallies, thrown books, and made snide remarks and/or comments that were so disrespectful and rude the president it is embarrassing to say the least.

The sad thing is...George Bush pretty raped and pillaged the country and no one said one dang word in many instances. Even as our children both black and white were being slaughtered overseas in a war that was "manufactured" by him and his cronies. Got a little off point here, but tend to do that sometimes when situations are not fair.

I would say this though...you might nee to get a real JOB and stop bogging to pay the bills

Mac--That is hogwash. Though no other real news stations other than faux news finds every little thing(plus out and out lies) about Obama wrong. You boys need to get a real life away from Murdocks pukes.

I have also heard that story and it makes me laugh every time because all I can think about is that must be the first robber in history to ever be relieved to see the police and the fastes one to get in the back seat of the crusier

Finally, someone that has a point that is straight up and true.... puns intended....instead of someone with a 24/7 hunt for anything that may be construed as racist. This article is about as racists as all the white Americans that voted for President Obama (whom I like and I am white). Weird we can take one article and have the comments be not even remotely similar in point....In all due respect to Mr. Brown's interpretation of the article, but "Mr. Brown, set down your aggro and join us men in boner sharing with hot women and their love for guns for 10 minutes.."

Why would anyone think the 2^nd amendment applies to men only? Perhaps some may consider the delicate flower of womanhood would consider guns to be to heavy or violent for them. They are in for a surprise.

Yeah!!! Our Women are good looking, strong minded, individuals with a brain...and guns!!!. Don't piss them off!!!

LOL well said pyrate. Well said indeed.

I'm quite surprised that there's an article that might actually promote women having guns. That's quite progressive of them.

I'm all for it. Women should take safety courses, train, and be fully competent with any weapons around the home or that they might carry. I think it makes women more attractive if they can protect themselves. Nice photos.

To Willy, Pyrate and Dragon---you are fellas after my own heart!! You make me proud to be an American dame. No chauvinism in your comments! Three cheers for you three!!!!!! Just think--that is one hell of a "covert" army we have right here on shore. All those pistol packin' mamas, and double or triple that number for the fellows here--totaling perhaps 50-60 million(?). Add that to our military, and just let someone try to take us here on foot. LOL Private gun ownership is EXACTLY the reason why the Japanese never considered invading our shores with their army in WWII. They knew we had 'em and we knew how to use 'em, and they knew they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell if they set foot on our land.

ColdHard, I imagined one of them telling me, "You can take my gun, when you pry me out of this hot, itchy sweater."

Am I the only one who thinks the image of a woman with a gun in one hand and a baby in the other is a little disturbing? If you want a gun, have a gun, I don't care... but it's not really a poster image for gun safety.

PrecededByNone,

Perhaps you should've read the article a little closer. If you had, you'd have understood the lady's reason for having that picture taken.

The gun she's holding belonged to her grandfather, who gave it to her father, who in turn gave it to her. She's holding her son as a symbol of that tradition, considering she will give it to him when he gets older.

The picture is supposed to symbolize family tradition. Perhaps if you'd read the article, you wouldn't be disturbed by it.

PrecededByNone...... Exactly why is that a little disturbing? All the women mentioned have been around guns and have been trained with them, most from a very young age. If you look closely, the shotgun that lady is holding is broke open. I'd also venture to guess that since she is holding a baby, there are no shells in it. What I find more disturbing is people flying down the highway texting, applying makeup, trying to read the paper and drink coffee all while driving. People with a lack of knowledge about guns and gun safety, are more often than not the ones that bellow the most about citizens owning guns.

It's not a poster image for gun safety? First: it's not about gun safety, there are classes for that and most of us who own guns have completed such classes already. You have not, apparently. Second, what do you know about the woman in the photo you referred to? Nothing, not a blasted thing. You must be assuming that it's a picture of a sadistic gun-toting mama (think Ma Barker) rather than a responsible American enthusiast who wishes to pass on a long-standing tradition. The negative image is in your mind, not in reality. Bet you don't know that Ted Nugent (yeah, that Ted Nugent) is a huge gun enthusiast as well. Sorry to get off subject with that last comment. Just trying to put things in perspective. The booka is about one different type of person packing heat. I simply offer up that many different "types" do, not just mamas and "subservient-looking women." That must be your ideal woman.

Sean,

And why should anyone care what a rude, insulting and ignorant person like YOU has to say either?

So far, all I've seen from your comments is snide remarks, outright insults and a serious lack of manners and intelligence.

Yeah, you're one of the LAST people anyone would bother listening to. What a joke.

I did read the article. And the reasons she's holding the gun. I still don't think it's okay. I'm entitled to having that opinion without your petty insults, just like you are entitled own weapons.

First: it's not about gun safety, there are classes for that and most of us who own guns have completed such classes already. You have not, apparently.

And when it comes to guns, IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT GUN SAFETY. ALWAYS. ESPECIALLY WHEN CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED. ALWAYS. How can you EVEN say that? Clearly YOU have never taken a gun safety class.

Second, what do you know about the woman in the photo you referred to? Nothing, not a blasted thing.

I know what they talked about in the article. What do you know about her?

I simply offer up that many different "types" do, not just mamas and "subservient-looking women." That must be your ideal woman.

I am a woman, and perfectly comfortable about my opinion of the woman in this picture. And I don't need a gun to make myself feel powerful or sexy. Other women do, and I'm fine with that.

You need to learn how to state your difference of opinion without being vile.

Preceeded,

It made me cringe a bit too. I'm not anti-gun, but I am concerned about our culture regarding them. I'm open to hearing people's reasonings in support of them, but if you want me to actually hear you, I would start by not including a child in one arm, a gun in another. That's not gonna help your argument any, it just makes you look kinda fanatical.

Before i deployed to my second tour I bought my wife a pistol and insisted that she learn how to shoot one handed. just so that if the situation came up she could protect our newborn baby and get the kids out of the house and if it means blowing some scumbags brains ever so neatly out of his skull then she did the taxpayers a favor

First, I assume you mean "so there, Obama." Please let us all know of what challenges to the nation's gun laws or the Second Amendment that President Obama has made since in office. Good luck.

@jd... Are you familiar with Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court? He'll be challenging the nation's gun rights for the next 30 years, by proxy...

JDNC

Kagen and Soto both staunch anti 2nd Amendment -

The Fast and Furious Debacle is heading full steam ahead.. The comment from Obama & Holder that our Guns are the main reason Mexico is having such a hard time is BS 8) considering they lost over 2k weapons and people have died because of fast and furious. The DOJ and ATF are stonewalling and covering their asses but the truth is getting out regardless.

Hopefully Holder will be FIRED and anyone else that had a hand in this crime.

If you are going to p,lay the fast and furious card or the race card in any discussion of the Obama Presidency, which is not the topic of this article by the way, it is necessary to call Eric Holder to task for his anti Mexican Racism in creating a program that armed Mexican criminals to murder Mexican children and destabailize Mexican communities.

Sooner or later President Obama is going to have to fire Holder or lose the latino vote over this.

Obama has voted against firearms since he was a senator. Check out his voting record. The whole city of Chicago has been against it for years. Obama and Hilary Clinton are also backers of the UN Arms treaty which is also a backdoor route to seize our firearms.

I see no reason why a community can't regulate what you do with your firearm. Personally I'd rather it be illegal to have it assembled when off private property.

And please tell me what Obama has done since becoming president to make it harder for you to keep a firearm for home defense?

Sean,

Stay fat and keep your head in the ground. Obviously criminals will disassemble their guns when they go out in public too right?

FatSean:

I see no reason why a community can't regulate what God you pray to. Personally I'd rather it be illegal to have an assembly when off private property.

And please tell me what Obama has done since becoming president to make it harder for you to keep Holy the Sabbath?

There, all fixed. If you prefer, you can also exchange "God you pray to" with "whom you sleep with" or "what you say".

I don't normally come out in defense of Obama but... I can now carry concealed in National Parks thanks to him.

Whenever I go to the range it seems there are children present, often inside the range with a parent present. I call that gun safety and responsibility.

Won't be thankin'sh!t sean!....We'll be sayin' "So Long" to obummer in 2012. He and his European style of governing don't work in America. Just sucks it took this trainwreck of a presidency for the people to figure it out. Oh and remember, It's better to have a gun and not need it then to need a gun and not have it.

...people who were too afraid to live their lives without their guns...

Please. I hear this "too afraid" garbage all the time. It's people like you who let fear form your opinion on the subject. If not why do you care that law abiding citizens are armed?

Spot on Backcountry164.

Exactly right Backcountry.

I have even been told by anti-gun friends that it is not right to walk around open carrying in my town. I live in Blacksburg, VA (Virginia Tech). They claim that if I walk around open carrying then I will scare people when they see my gun. That it will be miserable for them, and therefore I should be considerate of their feelings.

I tried to reason with this person, until I realized it was a lost cause. Then I laughed and ended that convo immediately.

Well then, good thing Obama doesn't get to wave his magic "Obama" wand and change things all on his own. Remember Civics 101, checks and balances, separation of powers, legislative process, judicial scrutiny...

I'm telling you, some of you guys give Obama way too much power. Being for gun controll as a senator has no power behind it, other then what his 1 vote carried.

Sarah,

Often an idea starts with just one person. Obviously I am not saying that Obama was the first anti-gun person in this country, but one person senator or otherwise can convince more and more. The structure of gov has nothing to do with. Speaking only for myself, I don't like the anti-gun ideals held by anti-gun people.

Like the old saying, "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away."

I'm pretty pleased, my wife has finally expressed interest in going to the shooting range with me. Pretty soon she'll be as enthusiastic as I am. I'm definitely going to have to take lots of pictures, though... a beautiful woman operating an AKM is a real sight for sore eyes...

My "go to" is a Colt 1911, let the criminal dial 911... they'll need it

Gary, I am not a big gun guy but I have always respected the argument about the need for self protection for those who live in rural areas.

I carry and I know how to use my guns. My son and I used to target shoot together; now his little boy is very impressed that his grandmother has guns and can use them. I do not hunt and mine are used solely for protection, believe me when I say that the protection of my family is a priority.

Yeah...My Wife has a 32 Winchester, a 22 high standard and a shotgun with 4 shells in it...first shell is light buckshot, then medium, large and finally...the hole maker...a slug that will put a hole in you like that movie "Death becomes her" with Goldie Hawn. I wanted her to have Rock Salt in one of those shells...I know from experience what that feels like.

Well stated, I just spent last weekend target shooting with my grandson (8 years old). I learned to shoot at an early age and have enjoyed years of game and bird hunting. My children (sons and daughters) have always been very capable with handguns and rifles. I know that my daughter is very capable of defending herself with a handgun. I find that very comforting.

I started teaching my sons to shoot when they were about 8 years old and last summer I had to give up the title of best shot in the family after 25 years to my 13 year old. Of course I blame age and bad eye sight, but I still beat everyone else. I am proud to know my sons will be carrying on tradition and have the knowledge to pass on to the next one when the time comes.

I also spent my youth with my dad showing me the ropes. I learned to shoot at an early age and my father taught me to respect firearms.

The years have rolled by and now I have 2 young toddlers and when they are ready I will be there to show my son and daughter the importance of the 2nd amendment and what it means.

The best thing you can do is just take some classes basic, general and advanced firearms courses.

I learned to shoot at an early age and my father taught me to respect firearms.

"There is no such thing as an unloaded gun, and until you have seen for yourself, always handle every gun as if it were loaded."

Bet you heard that as a kid; I know I heard it from the time I was able to understand. And you will teach your kids the same. Anti-gun people can't seem to grasp the fact that there are very few accidental shootings in homes where kids are raised around guns.

that is awesome b o'coy!

Actually I am surprised that there are no anti-gun nuts here railing against you for introducing your kids "early". Whenever I talk to them and say I will give my kids guns when they are young they spout off something vicious. Of course what they generally don't understand is just how seriously we take the safety issue.

Love the photos of the women at bottom of the article. All of them are carrying safely with finger outside trigger or hand nowhere near it at all. Quiet different from the gangsters on tv (including documentaries such as Gangland) where they pull a gun from their waistband (no holster) and their finger is on the trigger as they point it at everyone around them.

Yes, I can remember bringing my rifle to School to make adjustments and Rifle Team Practice............ plus we also had shotguns for skeet/trap shooting in PE Class.....

Like that would work out today??? LoL

I carried my 52D on the school bus in PA for the four years I shot on the team. I also legally carried a pocket knife from the time I was in third grade. Things change!

I can remember most of the farm boys who drove pickup trucks had gun racks in the back and always had them full. Wow! Things do change.

I took a trip though Texas and Louisiana in the early 1970’s. Back then I thought that it was illegal to own a pickup truck without a gun rack in those states!

All of the gun racks came down by the time I finally got back in the 1990’s.

All of the gun racks came down by the time I finally got back in the 1990’s.

LOL that's because they are under or behind the seat now.

In SD, our farmboys still keep their guns in the racks of their pickups right in the school parking lot. You just have to be in the small town (less than 10,000 people) to see it widespread.

We realy need to take this country back from the progressive hippies. How did we let those morons ruin America?

So true. Yesterday's flower child, todays' blooming idiot. Why did we let them?

There are bad things brewing in the entire nation. Everyone better learn to protect themselves. It's not just the inner cities, anymore.

So True

Agreed. I have to laugh every time I see or hear a news article claiming that crime is decreasing. That's a bigger lie than "the check's in the mail".

They def say it is decreasing.

Of course then you read an article like the one I saw out of Michigan where people are alleging that cops are not taking police reports in certain cases. Just like the Japanese and their extremely low crime rate. Crime rates can go to zero when they aren't reported or the cops refuse to take a report.

Exactly!

I must be the least in number of guns owned pro gun person that has ever lived. I have grown from indifferent about guns to owning one, to having a passion for them. And blaming a gun for hurting or killing anyone is like blaming your pencil for mispelled words. I love that these women own guns..and can handle them better than most men...including myself. There is something about a pretty woman that can change motor oil, clean a fish, set up camp....and of course handle a guy. Freaking sexy. As for the anti gun group, well where I live, Fresno, CA our Sheriff, a female leader believe every qualified citizen should own a gun with the CCW license. Yeah, you think nuts? Well the police need the publics help. And not to go around doing their work so much....but you know we'd have a lot less crime if the criminal would think twice if someone had a gun....Now the flipside, there are some arguements to that but generally speaking there are times when a cop isn't there but someone is as a bystander...and happens to be a trained in legal handgun use. And settles the sentence immediately...I have zero care about the violent criminal that inflicts whatever they must to achieve their goal..whether it's rape, murder, theft by force... I am sick of it and they need to get what they deserve. I hate criminals ...their rights are to be brought to justice. Here in Fresno to qualify as a reason for a concealed weapons license....Answer: I live in Fresno County. How's that for a good reason. License granted!

Glad you have one. Too bad Cali has to deal with "shall issue." Obviously anti-gun sheriffs or corrupt ones (I guarantee if you look at all Cali sheriffs and plotted against some of their "friends" we would see that they give permits to their friends or associates but not to regular joes) ruin it. It should be a must issue state like the rest of the country.

That's very good advise !!!

Open carry would be even better. then would certainly be no doubt.

I am mid 50's an accountant, and pistol packing. I wouldn't think of leaving home without my Lady Smith when I am hiking, camping or taking a road trip. It is the great equalizer and lets me enjoy trips with confidence!

I have been told by a couple of cops that one reason it cuts assault rates is because the criminals know women shoot to kill, when men will usually just wound if it is possible.

You can get open carry permits here; concealed is more involved and more expensive but it is available.

Rene, that's an interesting statement if true. Though, I don't shoot to kill or wound, I shoot to "hit" because I don't entirely trust my accuracy, or that of my firearm. Lucky for me, my magazines hold 30 rounds, so I can afford to miss a few. Also, the bayonet on the front might come in handy.

I really don't know how accurate it is; I am just going on what they tell me. The only thing I can say with complete accuracy is I would try to kill, especially in my home. But I have to admit, there is another reason behind that other than immediate physical protection: If you shoot an intruder and DON"T kill them, chances are good you will be sued. I think if someone is shot or injured while committing a crime they just have to deal with it and not be allowed to press charges. Unfortunately, the courts don't see it that way.

I shoot to kill if I am hunting and I would shoot to neutralize the threat if it were necessary. I do not point my weapon at anything that I don't intend to kill. Neutralizing a threat means that the person is not likely to get up..a double tap should accomplish that mission.

Good for you and good for him he is a very lucky man, to have a wife like you.

@GulfVet49: Quick ? What does 'judged by 12 than carried by 6' mean? thx

To add to this forum, the lady w/ the Sako .308 is smoking hot, just saying..;) Additionally, I carry daily and in our home we have an alarm etc., we also have young children and a Emergency Plan in place should a breech occur..Being a combat vet, it's better to be prepared, not paranoid than compromised..

It means being tried by a jury of 12 of your peers after the incident vs being carried to your gave by 6 pallbearers.

I'm right there with you, sister. No way I will leave myself unprotected. I have found out that there is not a lot of people you can depend on these days. This is especially true when your family lives in another state.

Okay! Well, moving on, I would offer that some counseling might be in order, before you "accidentally" shoot someone in your misdirected anger. Or would you at least give your ammunition to someone until you've resolved your issues? I would hate to read about you having done something you would invariably regret later.

Doesn't sound like either of these ladies needs couseling OR has misdirected anger. Pretty simple Steve-O...women feel threatened in this country. The court system doesn't do anything with the thugs, they get out, they do it again. It's called "self preservation, buddy!

Lemme guess, you voted Democrat the last election.

Thank you kattlekween. I guess some guys just don't get it. Considering who does the most harm to women, I guess they wouldn't. Don't hear tell of women going around raping and killing other women.

Steve you sound like a limp wristed liberal gun grabber, I see no overt or covert anger in the lady's writings. You are attempting to create a straw man where there is no grounds for doing so. Try getting some new talking points.

No anger...just stating facts. If you dont think that people get desperate when they have nothing left, and will do anything to survive then you must be very nieve. Tell me what you would do when you cant get food for your family, and your children are hungry. Or the police are not able to respond to your call for help. Who are YOU going to call? I rely on myself and no one else, that is all I was saying. Sorry Steve If the men thing offended you, but sometimes the truth hurts. Maybe women couldnt do any better, but it is a chance I would love to have!!

@ Kerry J

Although, I am a male, couldn't agree with you more!

Or would you at least give your ammunition to someone until you've resolved your issues?

She has no issues. What she has is a well-developed and (sadly) necessary sense of self-preservation and protectiveness.

The court system doesn't do anything with the thugs, they get out, they do it again.

Yep. We just had a violent sex offender move into our neighborhood; if there were any women here that did not already own a gun, they sure as hell do now.

I think I have a little advantage, though: there are 6 dogs in this house and 4 more outside; I honestly don't think it would be possible for someone to enter this house without us knowing it in time to react.

Steve6,

Kerry might have a little hint of anti-male sentiment in there but that is no reason to say she might shoot someone.

Leave it to a stupid fool like Steve6 and the other stupid fools who try to make someone feel guilty for taking steps towards self-preservation. It would appear that these fools don't practice self preservation or have that instinct. The fact is that they do. They aren't going to walk into the ghetto and hang out there just to see what it is like, because self preservation kicks in. The catch is that stupid fools like Steve6 are scared of self preservation when it means using a weapon.

I have talked with people like this before. I ask, "what will you do if a guy breaks into your house? Wouldn't you shoot them?" These types usually reply with "what if the bad guy is on drugs and just made a bad decision?" I don't want to hurt the bad guy simply because he made a bad decision because he was high. Some people are under the delusion that you can reason with an intruder in the fraction of a second you have to think.

The answer is that some people are soft and too afraid to hurt another even if they are defending themselves. They know that the criminal would hurt them, they know the criminal is the violent aggressor, and yet they don't think they can bring themselves to self defense with a weapon. I say good for me. Maybe they will be more likely to be a victim than me, which in terms of my self preservation is a good thing.

However, Kerry I do feel you are incorrect to label this as an issue resulting from men ruling the world. All humans are fallible and guilty of crap. Heck, I was watching "The Revolution" on netflix the other day. I was reminded that the wife of Benedict Arnold was just as guilty as he was in cooking up the plot for Benedict to defect to the British and give away valuable information about George Washington's army, movements, etc, etc.

There have been women rulers too, both have done bad and both have done good. Stop it with the sexist crap!

Ok, there have been many misguided women also, but at this point in history it would be interesting to see how different things would be if roles were reversed. If the oppresion of women was gone and they were allowed to spread the good we have to offer. I would love nothing more than to have a world where guns are not even nessesary, Along with war.That would be wonderful!! Despite my words, I tend to see the good in the world....before the bad. Thank you all for your interest.

That is awesome, my congratulations and complements to you and your family. I wish my family would do that with me.

riding a harley with a holstered piece on her hip.....oh yeah~~~~~~

It ain't the sexy that counts.

It doesn't get much better than that LOL

lacywild,

It may not be the sexy that counts...but it sure doesn't hurt either. ;)

Not to mention the fact that while a woman riding a Harley with a pistol on her hip might be smokin hot...she probably isn't going to get messed with either.

MOST men aren't dumb enough to piss off a woman with a gun.

I get your point Idaho Dragon. I noticed you sad MOST men. Guess there must be a few out there that would be dumb enough. Since you are still around, I guess you are not one of the dumb ones. LOL

Heh, no. I'm neither dumb nor suicidal.

I said most because there's always at least one dumb enough to either think the lady won't pull the trigger, doesn't know how to use it or something else equally stupid.

Think she won't sqeeze the trigger bucko? Well that's a quick way to be 'invited' to leave the gene pool.

Stay down girlfriend!!!!!

With all due respect I agree with you on most of what you say, but any "get off me gun" as you call it is will kill a person at a close distance if you know how to shoot. I get tired of some"gun people" calling small caliber pistols "popguns", "piss me off guns" etc. Give me a 22, 25, or 380 and see what damage I can do to an intruder with it.

Sometimes people move during shootings, .25 don't penetrate deep enough and sometimes that happens with a .380 as well. I say this from being a street cop invovlved in numerous shootings.

The women in the article are "real" women, Fluffy852. Just because they don't belong to YOUR organization doesn't make them any less "real" than you. I'm a "real" woman and I don't belong to 2nd Amendment Sisters. Comments like your's do nothing positive for the gun debate.

Best time to rob a house is when you're at work. And all your neighbors are at work.

Hey, if you can get past my two Rotts and internet security cams... go right ahead.