Here's an interesting paragraph I gleaned from a gun forum that pretty much sums up the way the anti-gunners think. "At the last WI assembly veto override session, I talked with a couple of the chair-polishers from the WI State Patrol. I asked one of them if, one of his troopers was faced with someone charging toward him with a knife, the trooper should have the right to shoot in self-defense. Well, of course, he said. I then asked him if, someone was charging toward me with a knife, I had the right to shoot in self-defense. He said that "citizens" should have our cell phones with us. Just call 911, he said, and they'll be there. Another elitist who's got his own backside covered." I have known a lot of police officers since I have been in the emergency room for the past 24 years and not all cops think this way and certainly not many of the older cops, but I think many of the younger ones who were raised to be "politically correct" and exposed to the anti-gun propaganda of the last 20+ years may feel this way. It is also the major premise of the anti-gun crown of politicians and the TV/movie personalities that feel it is their duty to tell others how to live their lives. These same people, Rosie O'Donnell, Ted Kennedy, and California Congresswoman Diane Feinstein all pop into mind, think it is OK for them to have armed guards to protect "their" familes but would deny the average citizen the same opportunity. Why should my wife, your girlfriend, or any woman or man have to rely on calling 911 to protect their family or selves? Why do the politicians want unarmed citizens? Do they really think that the criminals will obey gun legislation? Can they show me just ONE instance where a country banned guns and the crime rate actually went down? I realize that a lot of people could care less if legislation is passed regarding gun control. A lot of people simply either don't like guns or do not care one way or the other. I happen to believe that the first right a person has is the right to defend themselves or their family when threatened with bodily harm; why should I not have a means of self-defense equal to or greater than some thug who breaks into my house. If I were a congressman or famous movie star, maybe I could afford to hire body guards, but since I am not, my families safety falls to me. No responses to this are necessary; I just wanted to blow off a bit of steam after reading the comments I posted above. I do not expect to sway a person one way or the other regarding gun control but neither will I ever let the government disarm me and remove my families protection.