[Rick.Donaldson]

Reading the thing as a whole I don’t see how you think this is an underhanded attack on Ms Assamm.

Well, I READ the WHOLE thing, three times before I commented on it. I even asked a co-worker. His remarks were the same as mine. I have seen about a dozen articles all over the country, and each one is working an angle for "discrediting" her in some manner. This article is 1) INACCURATE in it's facts, and 2) There is an underhanded remark about her having been fired from a LE job. I don't see that the second one is relevant in ANY WAY to what she had to do, and secondly if one of the first "facts" presented by a newspaper that is supposed to be providing ACCURATE details is WRONG, how can you believe or trust ANYTHING they are saying???????????

[the OlLine Rebel]

It’s a commentary, not an “article”. Besides, lots of articles get it wrong. The incorrect “facts” it presented are pretty minor. People mess them up all the time.

It’s also a fact she was fired. That doesn’t mean the statement on it was prejudiced. I thought it was simply stating so and in a way, incredulous that a person in such a state had the fortitude to do the job needed.

The bottom line was the last paragraph. He wonders IF you’re not allowed to have guns yourself, if you should not be provided some kind of armed protection, even if in the 3rd-party indirect sense.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“I READ the WHOLE thing, three times before I commented on it.”

Well, there may be your problem. You beat it to death and read too much into it.