Thank you for not apologizing on your self-defense stance. I've so often seen people being sheepish about self-defense, rather than stand up and say 'I will defend what is precious to me!'

When it comes to my family, I will protect them, with lethal force if warranted. If you don't like my stance, move to some place were people are okay with being defenseless. Someplace like murder capitols Chicago or New York.

And Libertarian4evr, you belong in the USCCA, My name is the same there as it is here!

I applaud your sense of responsibility. However, we have technically had the right to be armed since the dawn of humanity. Remember that the 2nd ammend. is an enumeration of a Natural, God-given right, not the right itself. As free people we will always have that right, the government will just try to control and diminish it.

Nice of the Government to allow us to defend ourselves from wild animals.

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke.

Hmm, I wasn't aware of a constitutional right to not have to see a gun. Anyone here ever read about that?

But seriously, anyone with common sense knows that Concealed Carry Permit holders are the ones who will be able to use this law the most. So the guns won't be seen most of the time any way.

After thinking about it, it probably was safest for the officers to approach the arrest this way. I still like the Government to be afraid of the citizens, but not to the point of a crippling inability to arrest someone for fear of armed retaliation from every quarter. (They get paid to take the risk of retaliation from the alleged criminals.)
Of course if they start arresting people for no reason, they should be a little concerned.

Fair enough. And considering the various school shootings, they had a right to be afraid of a kid. I suppose since we don't have all the info we really can't get an accurate view of what all went down. I'm just the type of person who trusts the citizen first in this sort of thing. I am however, reasonable enough to change my opinion if I think I was wrong. Unlike, ya know, politicians.

I think most people are annoyed about the way it happened. I don't think it would be impossible for the feds to knock on the door, show the warrant and proceed peacefully with their job.

I think this will end as a bad move for the government. However, the mothers comments on guns drive me nuts. Where I'm from, when someone breaks in your house you shoot until the threat is eliminated or in other words, until you no longer fear for yours or your loved ones lives.
Anyone else think that Feds would be less eager to pull 'shock and awe' on the front door of a house with known gun owners?
Locks keep honest people out, threat of death keeps out the rest and makes the government think twice before they pull this stuff.

I'm surprised the headline wasn't, 'Pres. gives fast food economy boost!'
I also liked the bit about the server being marries to a FOX news staffer. Like its some sort of egg on their face.
HAHA the President just gave money to someone who may very well vote against him.

They haven't believed in equality in a long time, since law abiding citizens can't have a Colt 'equalizer'. I certainly wouldn't want to go to a country where I couldn't legally defend myself. If you look it up, British law actually has a case where a man was arrested as a "danger to criminals".
At least in most places in the US, we only need a bribe (read:license) to carry a gun.

The more we tax companies the more time and capital they must use to find ways to make all plans viable given the way we tax.
If we just used a consumption tax, we could solve all the problems mentioned. Offshore accounts would be meaningless, corporations would move to the US, and labor would increase.
Therefore, any politician that talks about fixing the tax problem, while keeping our current system, is just putting out more of the same garbage we've hear for the last few decades.