By Chad D. Baus

Last month, I asked the nation's gun owners if they were willing to be Mitt Romney's cheap date - if they were willing to forget his years of anti-gun philandering and buy into his election-season pandering.

"Is it just me," I asked, "or is it incredibly insulting every time a politician expects America's hunters, sportsmen, concealed handgun license-holders and gun owners to fall for a couple of drunken one-liners in an election year?"

It seems Mr. Romney isn't the only Republican presidential-hopeful who thinks gun owners are as easy as that airheaded college girlfriend who watches as their date gropes and fondles waitresses, but forgives him as soon as he says "I love you baby. Now go get me another beer."

Rudy Giuliani established a solid anti-gun record in New York. In the 1990s, Giuliani and anti-gun President Clinton talked about establishing uniform national gun control laws. And in 2000, while defending his use of taxpayer dollars to file junk lawsuits designed to put gun manufacturers out of business, he accused these American businesses of knowingly calculating sales to an illegal market by intentionally overproducing guns.

By Joe DeVito

A recent event in downtown Columbus furthered the case long since proved by concealed carry advocates, that leaving employees defenseless at work is dangerous and irresponsible. A very well known Fortune 500 company has just such a policy, despite the repeated attacks on employees walking to and from their cars parked off of company property.

The area between the work building and most parking lots is well known for drug dealing, panhandling car break-ins and purse snatching.

Yet, in an irresponsible act, employees are banned from carrying at work and therefore are disarmed on their trip to and from their vehicles, plus while standing out front of the building during lunch breaks.

During one of the recent warm days, an unprovoked attack took place on a large group of company employees. Without the courageous act of two unarmed employees there could have easily been serious injury or deadly force used against unarmed innocent people.

Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.