If I might suggest...
That while the various agencies of the Fed govt you have worked for trained you to kill, they also trained you how to handle firearms safely.
I have to agree in general with Peetzakilla, the fact that you have been "trained to kill" comes across as an emotional statement, one that can be easily misconstrued. And one that has nothing to do with our natural rights to firearms ownership.
I think emphasising the fact that you have been trained in the safe handling of firearms (because you were trained to do that, along with the other things you were trained to do), is a much more positive image, and one more likely to have a good effect on those who have not already closed their minds on this issue.
And as Glenn pointed out, comparing our right to arms for self defense with automobiles is not a valid comparison. Beyond the fact that guns are used with the intent to inujure (so as to stop attack), where cars and doctors are not, there is also the legal fact that driving a car on public highways is not a "right". Accidental drownings in home swimming pools claim more lives yearly than accidental shootings. They just don't get as big headlines in the news.
You passion is obvious, but your use of cliches weakens the impact of your arguments. We understand, and many of us feel exactly the same way. The dedicated antis are beyond reasoning with, their minds are already made up on this issue, and they firmly believe that they are right. The ones we need to enlighten are those who have not yet closed their minds, and are willing to listen to rational arguments. They get more than enough emotion from the other side.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.