Shotgun Rainbow

No, the headline isn’t a word association game, nor is it the result of an LSD trip.

What a combination: the beauty of a rainbow from the beauty of a 12 gauge shotgun.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Ted Cruz 2016


Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly


  • thisoldspouse

    I thought she was going to shoot some rainbow trout!

  • Dawn

    In my younger life I was a 4H gun safety student. I was so advanced that I was asked to make a demonstration of gun safety in our State Capital. One of the basic tenets of gun safety is that you DO NOT shoot at or over water (even if it is a shot gun).

    I think this person needs to enroll in a new hunter/gun safety course, immediately!

    Rule No. 6:
    6. Don’t Shoot at Hard Surfaces (Including Water).
    Water might not seem like a hard surface, but its density makes it pretty dangerous. It has a tendency to allow bullets and shotgun shot to ricochet (glance off) and fly off in an unintended direction. Not good. Hard surfaces like metal, rocks, and hard wood can do this too – and they can even send the projectile back to the shooter, which can be hard on a feller, because shooting oneself, even indirectly, can be a pretty nasty experience.

    • WXRGina

      I thought the same thing when I watched the video. In fact, I cringed when she shot into the water!

    • Bob Ellis

      I, too, have taken a few gun safety courses in my youth, and am familiar with warnings against shooting at or over water.

      I have also shot at or over water countless times without any ill effects.

      Shooting at or over water with a rifle is more dangerous than a shotgun, but the danger factors have more to do with the backdrop and the angle of the shot than the action itself.

      At the angle she is employing, there is virtually no chance that she or anyone else will get hurt.

      But I understand that liberals like to dream up all manner of fearful reasons why people shouldn’t have fun with guns.

    • Bob Ellis

      I just realized something very interesting. On one hand, Dawn defends an unnatural sexual practice associated with numerous illnesses such as increased AIDS transmission, almost every other kind of STD, anal cancer, hepatitis, depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicide.

      On the other hand, Dawn immediately finds danger in shooting a gun at water from an angle and with a backdrop where there is virtually no possibility of anyone getting hurt.

      This exemplifies the modern liberal mindset.

      • WXRGina

        Oh, good points, Bob!

  • Bob Ellis

    Really?  If you defend homosexual behavior (which you have repeatedly done at my websites), you are defending precisely what I described.  There you go again, trying to dodge reality. I should also point out that while non-homosexuals can indeed contract those illnesses, the incidence of them among homosexuals is astronomically high for a group which makes up less than 3% of the population. Once more, the proof is in the pudding.

    I pointed out the reason why people are cautioned about firing guns over or into water, and why those reasons are not applicable in this instance.

    Once again you illustrate not only the liberal animosity toward reality, but the liberal predilection for condemning the legal and moral activities of law-abiding citizens on one hand while defending immoral and dangerous behaviors on the other. These tendencies are humorously cataloged routinely at a great website:

    You are a living illustration of the reason I do what I do online.  Someone has to hold the line for sanity, and I am glad to accept the challenge in this insane world.

    • Dawn

      And, once again it’s Bob and weave! For your edification, the afflictions you attempt to solely contribute to people who happen to be either gay, lesbian, or bisexual in the percentile range you suggest are in fact due to promiscuous activities. Do you know what that word means, Bob? As I pointed out in another comment I made here somewhere, I DO NOT support or condone ideologies which make such proclivities acceptable! Do you get that? Or, are you just as dense as the lead at the bottom of that body of water?

      “Normal” gay and lesbian people involved in committed relationships are at the same risk level that you or I would be. No higher and no lower.

      Now, as for the issue of shooting over water. This girl had no shoulder rest and no eye protection and operating the gun in rapid fire succession. Trying to suggest that there is little risk involved is playing with fire when handling a weapon in that situation. Denying such makes you as dangerous as she is, when handling a weapon. In any case, I feel you’re just being obstinate and are only trying to goad the conversation further. 

      But, since it’s painfully obvious you need an explanation:

      Once those pellets leave the barrel (Especially in a shot gun. The reason should be as obvious as the nose on your face) you have NO, ZERO control of where they end up with certainty. The back drop she was across from was what appears to be layered shale rock. As she was firing, any one of those pellets had the potential to ricochet from the water to the rock and back into her face, or the camera person’s!

      I am all for having fun shooting guns. I likely own more than you. I have been a range-master at our local shooting range and have never had a mishap on my duty. But, I also ran a number of hot-head know-it-all’s like yourself from the range for lesser offences than what she has displayed! My actions were supported and recognized by the head range-masters based upon review as well. You’re simply unbelievable! 

      As an aside. Displays like this do no good toward mitigating a more positive public perception on the ethical use of a firearm. Don’t we have enough negative notoriety these days without such?

      As for your reference to me having a “liberal predilection”? All I can do is laugh!! ‘Cause that’s funny right there!’      

      • Bob Ellis

        Yes, homosexuals are afflicted with astronomically high rates of AIDS and other STDs because they are amazingly promiscuous. I could waste my time reciting multiple figures from multiple medical and clinical sources–including the CDC–which reveal that the homosexual community typically knows dozens if not hundreds of sexual partners in their shortened lifespan, and that their STD rate is many times that of even prostitutes…, and that monogamy is almost non-existent in the homosexual community…but then, you’ve already illustrated many times that you aren’t the least bit interested in facts which contradict your fantasies.

        I could likewise point out the reasons why homosexuals are so astonishingly promiscuous (as anyone who has studied or experienced–as I have both–self-destructive immoral behaviors understands, such behaviors are an attempt to fill an unmet need; in the case of the homosexual, it usually involves an unbalanced relationship with their mother or father or both, as well as an alienation from peace with one’s own conscience), but again, why should I waste my time on someone who is hostile to the truth?

        Regarding your infantile whining about “gun safety,” I could point out that countless people have countless times fired countless rounds from countless weapons without a shoulder rest or eye protection (or–gasp–even ear protection). I speak as one of many with this experience, both growing up and in the military. I’m in my mid forties, and despite my “dangerous” behavior and untold thousands of rounds fired off in my youth, my adult hobbies and my 10 years in the military, I’m completely healthy and whole.

        I could (once again) point out that the angle at which she was shooting made it virtually impossible for a water ricochet to occur…and even if one had occurred, even if the backdrop were indeed shale and not dirt, the odds of a secondary ricochet in the direction of her or her cameraman were extremely low.

        Maybe it’s just because I wasn’t raised to be a liberal wuss, or maybe it’s because I spend more time being concerned about the real dangers of immoral and self-destructive behaviors, but I just can’t get worked up at a young woman having some very unique and interesting fun.

        Of course, I can’t ignore the very real, clinical and highly documented dangers of an immoral and unnatural sexual behavior like you can, either.

        There comes a time when to continue to try to have a rational conversation with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated a dogged commitment to being irrational begins to violate Biblical wisdom not to cast pearls before swine, or to answer a fool according to his folly. I fear I crossed that line some time ago, so I must inform you once again that no more of your liberal nonsense will be accepted on this thread. You’ve wasted far too much time that could have been spent preparing material for people who are interested in truth.