I am going to make a confession that I hope isn't misinterpreted or misunderstood. When I read Bucco's post, I thought, 'well, I don't like either choice......but.....I'd say use either one to protect America from anyone who wants to impose their will against us and hurt our citizens.'

I thought it was sorta like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and was afraid all the liberals would jump on any answer that was given and distort the point of his post. I thought (wrongly, I realize now) that I'd wait to see replies and study what was said before I answered.

Rules of War have always confused me. I don't mean the rules themselves. Just the concept of having rules. I understand the creation of the Red Cross and having other countries who aren't so humane agreeing to humane treatment of prisoners, those wounded on battlefields, et al. But rules on how to kill people or get important information to save lives leaves my head spinning.

Maybe I over analyze things and read too much. Maybe it is because I'm a woman. Don't get me wrong. I grew up with four brothers. Although none of them were hunters, each of us grew up learning to shoot various weapons. My 91 year old father was a sharp shooter. I was taught to respect every "gun" as if it is loaded and to never to point a gun at someone unless you mean to kill them.

To not use every means possible to protect yourself against someone trying to hurt you just confuses me. Sorry to ramble.