Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Let's Talk About Gun Control

(Two posts today. Please scroll down)

In the wake of the Aurora Massacre, here is Bill O'Reilly on the topic (hat tip to Reliapundit of THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS):


Discussion of other methods to prevent such massacres is also encouraged in this thread.

I'll offer my opinions later, in the comments section of this blog post. First, I want to know what YOU have to say.

91 comments:

  1. HI AOW.

    This important bill is about to be passed:

    http://www.mfs-theothernews.com/2012/07/cyber-bill-has-democratic-gun-control.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. I recently did a post where I asked where people would limit the Second Amendment bteween the extremes of a totally disarmed populus and the right to have a weapon of mass distruction? One commetor suggest the cut off teween what the military has and what the police have. If citizens had a right to bear arms equal to the police, that would included automatic weapons, armored vehichles and drones.

    The provlem with noti the FBI at some level of purchases is that it fives the government the tool to confiscate if they decided to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gun control is about as popular and useful as "movie content control"... so which Constitutional right should take precedence, "free speech" or the right to "keep and bear arms"?

    It's what Berlin termed "the unavoidability of conflicting ends" or, alternatively, the "incommensurability" of values. He once called this "the only truth which I have ever found out for myself... Some of the Great Goods cannot live together.... We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss." In short, it's what Michael Ignatieff summarized as "the tragic nature of choice".


    I say "neither". I prefer to "accept" both the current and future "tragedy."

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Gun control measures" will not work.

    A casual glance at any big city reveals why. Criminals don't obey laws.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As one shooter's t-shirt said:

    "Guns don't kill people, I do"

    Exactly right. Under the Constitution we have the right to own guns, period. When they start banning "this" and "that" soon it will be everything.

    Debbie
    Right Truth
    http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bill O'Reilly sounds like an idiot and he should have STFU and let Chaffetz finish a few of his comments.

    Anyone can buy a sub-machine gun? Uh, well no, Bill. Chaffetz was trying to explain that to you but you wouldn't stop talking long enough to hear the answer (one I happen to know.)

    I don't care what people buy and "reporting" on Holmes buying all that stuff wouldn't have changed a thing. The guy is nuts, drugged up, and possibly some other things going on.

    O'Reilly needs to check out the crime stats in Chicago to see what havoc "gun control" produces.

    The country is in the tank and Bill O'Reilly wants to talk about gun control? Really? REALLY???

    ReplyDelete
  7. If there were no guns, the misfits would use knives.

    If there were no knives, the misfits would use poison gas.

    If there were no gas, the misfits would use fire.

    If there were no matches -- and no gasoline --, the misfits would use broken glass.

    If there were no glass, the misfits would use clubs.

    If there were no clubs, the misfits would use sticks.

    If there were no sticks, the misfits would use their bare hands.

    If the misfits had their arms cut off, they would use their feet.

    Unless and until all forms of aberrant thought and perverse desire are bred out of the human race, there will be occasional incidents of senseless random violence.

    "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bill O'Reilly, obviously, knows little about this subject. In addition his comportment is a perfect example of 'bloviation' which he is always admonishing the rest of us not to do. I'm also sick and tired of him talking about what a swell guy B.O. is. O'Reilly is a pompous @$$ bore!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I propose a fast and speedy trial followed by an execution ... say all to take place in sixty days.

    ReplyDelete
  10. O'Reilly once again plays right into Big Government. And it's downright shameful that he falls in line with the rest of the mass hysteria media about "AK-47s". A semi-auto AK is no more dangerous than any semi-auto weapon but for some reason, the word "AK" sends shivers up spine of those who are uninformed. We all know that gun control does nothing to prevent violent crime but does everything to hurt the law-abiding citizen, whether that citizen wishes to own and shoot or not.
    Here's my thought: We didn't see as many lunatics getting away with mass acts of gun violence years ago beacause 1-our society is falling apart morally and people are not looking out for signs of trouble in their friends and family. And when people see trouble brewing, they shove it off on a "professional" therapist, if at all. Those closest to you are the ones who can be the biggest help.
    2- Our society has made guns the boogey man so 1/2 of Americans don't know squat about guns much less how to use them safely. Years ago EVERY household had guns for food and defense. (And there was none of that silliness about needing a concealed carry permit). If this type of tragedy started to unfold back when, the gunman would have been shot down before so many were killed or injured because a lot of people who were there would have been armed. I would like to see our constitution and freedoms taught to our children to include mandatory gun use and safety classes. I would like to see more people carrying their weapons openly (as you can do in open-carry states) or concealed. I don't care how crazy a criminal is, if they think the potential victims are armed, they will think twice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bill O'Reilly is a complete ass and more often than not, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    Can people buy automatic weapons? Yes, just as soon as they pay for the federal license to have one.

    Does the average joe need a Tommy Gun? Well, no ... probably not. Let me posit the following: if citizens could purchase RPGs, would they use them against the innocent? Not unless you happened to be a left wing dip shit. On the other hand, can you see the government using RPGs against us? Think Waco and Ruby Ridge before you answer.

    I honestly think we have less to fear from extremist Moslems than we do our own government.

    ReplyDelete
  12. First let's take a look at the 2nd Amendment.

    It mentions militias because in one of Jefferson's loony ideas a standing armed forces was a threat to "liberty".
    Well, look at the early performance of militias in our history and you'll see why that dumb idea was dropped quickly.

    They became anachronisms but the 2nd amendment was transformed with no consideration for original intent. Fair enough but not something the fringe right admits or allows with any consistency.

    What the right doesn't seem to notice is that as the private arsenal becomes more lethal so does the military/police arsenal and the states ability to crush dissent.

    So if you want a firearm for home protection, fine that's settled and isn't going to change.
    If you cling to this moronic idea that your arms are going to overthrow an oppressive government, you're a dope. That one is also settled.

    Institute common sense point of sales control and let's move on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Freedombytheway,

    "1/2 of Americans don't know squat about guns"

    Spot On! And those of whom you speak will swallow every bit of the B.S. that blow-hards like O'Reilly can orally defecate!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "What the right doesn't seem to notice is that as the private arsenal becomes more lethal so does the military/police arsenal and the states ability to crush dissent."

    In [no] way do I advocate the violent overthrow of [our] government but an examination of recent and current events in the World invalidates the above quotation. Further, a review of American History reveals the indisputable fact that a poorly armed, armed nevertheless, band of non professional soldiers defeated the most powerful military might in the World; this is known as the"American Revolution"! The victims of the NAZI regime were not afforded such an option(s).

    ReplyDelete
  15. I do think that buying THAT MUCH ammo on line ought to set off some alarms.

    I have to say I loved how Chaffetz stood up to O'Reilly...and I HATE that 'gangster talk' O'Reilly sinks to when he's being his usual self-righteous self, so it's hard for me to listen to him..ever. But, he has good people on and he has both sides represented nearly all the time, so it's more refreshing and informative than CNN, etc...

    having wasted half my comment saying all of that (!), I'm with Woodsterman...a trial is wasted on this guy. And if I hear 'alleged' killer one more time...........GAD! what's it TAKE to see HE DID IT? Have our lawyers so screwed us up that we can't even see the obvious anymore for fear of taking away HIS RIGHTS? WHat RIGHT does one have when he's intended to do as much killing of innocents as possible?
    I know...the right to trial.
    And our right to spending MILLIONS for his rights...and to make sure our society suffers more and more even for mentioning the NAME of this scum bag and worrying about psychoanalyzing him and 'what did we do wrong?'
    BS. THere's got to be a happy medium between rights and common sense..but, no...not anymore.

    SO, AOW, what's your opinion you promised re O'Reilly's rant!?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Further, a review of American History reveals the indisputable fact that a poorly armed, armed nevertheless, band of non professional soldiers defeated the most powerful military might in the World

    ----
    Yup, it's inevitable that we will quickly get one of these fringe right "historians" who don't know much about the revolution or the role of the French.

    Here's one for you, Jon, Haiti was critical in our winning the Revolution.
    How? It generated the wealth the French needed to wage war with the British.

    Then look at how we treated that poor nation. But that requires a reading of history in much more depth than the average fringe right can generate.

    Oh, and learn something about the performance of militias and the idiot Jefferson's idea of having citizen militias invade Canada.

    I'm not saying that as a fringe right winger your concept of history is limited to a couple of bromides but you are suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As far as preventing these massacres? Very difficult although the massacre at Virginia Tech indicated that point of purchase regulation CAN help.

    These tragedies have been with us throughout history.

    Here's a maxim to live by: There is absolutely NOTHING that one man won't do to another. Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear "Z"
    You said "There's got to be a happy medium between rights and common sense". Well, I definently agree with you, but I would like to very respectfully ask you a question with the hope of maybe finding some amicable middle ground and bringing nuance to issues that are normally presented as a binary between two opposing ideaology's: Whould you be willing to apply the same principle of finding a "happy medium between rights and common sense" to the right to "keep and bear arms" that you are proposing we apply to the "right to due process"? I'm willing to do the latter if you're willing to do the former, that way neither one of us is being hypocritical.

    ~ "B"

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear "Z",
    Correction: I mentioned "right to due process" in my comment, but should have said "right to trial" seeing as that's the "right" you mentioned in your comment. Sorry, my mistake. Please replace where I said "right to due process" with "right to trial" in my comment.

    ~ "B"

    (See, unlike the White House Blog that Mrs. AOW brings up in her previous post, THIS liberal can and is more than willing to admit/correct his mistakes! Haha)

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think, because of your traditions and history, people panic when they see the word gun-control. Perhaps simply saying public weapon management would calm nerves.

    For a start it would be naive for anyone to think that a weapon ban in America is possible - simply put it would never work.

    It is equally naive to think that your 2nd Amendment and "Contitutional Right" to bear arms means that you must have the best, most powerful and military callibre weapons.

    These two points is what matters, the rest comes down to cold hard facts, what is achievable and understanding what are the problems.

    Two other issues are equally important. Your political landscape makes it mostly a State issue and not a national one, thus there are basically 50 different rules, regulations and levels of availability, yet you have open borders between your states.

    The second is a very incorrect assumption that the types of weapons do not make a difference and that somehow they will all do crimes and equal amounts of violence. That is not the case at all. Though crime will always exist the level of damage and danger to the public equates to what is available. If, as an example, only handguns were permissible then the theatre deaths simply would be less as would have Columbine and so on.

    Silverfiddle said that criminals will not obey the law and that is absolutely correct but he has forgetten that by having the law, you have identified the criminal. In other words having say an automatic weapon when it is illegal means that you have illegally purchased, illegally concealed and illegally used. That both makes the criminal more identifiable for the authorities, but more importantly, it stops the general population having them and abusing them.

    For my part I believe the solution has to be holistic and long-term.

    1. Gun control and licensing must be a federal law not a state law.
    2. All semi-automatic and automatic weapons as well as military-grade must be banned through a phased 3 year system first offering buy-backs, secondly hand-overs and the last year minor penalties.
    3. During the three year change, all licenses must be handed in and changed to a federal one that is linked to a gun-club or a police-station. To get a license you must not only have a background check but have either a police station chief or a designated principle of a club counter-sign it (and they get to be responsible to a degree as well).
    4. Weapons must be purchased through a licensed vendor or a gun-club.
    5. Ammunition must be purchased through a licensed vendor or a gun-club.
    6. AFT must monitor the above history of purchases.

    Sure, cross border, smuggling and hoarding will happen BUT the vast majority will not have access and they will know it is a crime.

    People wishing to have protection can have the hand-gun but will be made more responsible. People who like to shoot and farmers/ranchers will have access.

    Knife wielders can still be shot by the gun-owner and knife wielders cannot stab 70 odd people in a theatre.

    I can guarentee you that after 15 years the next generation will have more respect for weapons and a genuine dislike of heavier weapons.

    A final comment. Ammendments can be changed, your founding fathers did not know about modern automatic weapons and the wild west is now only history. Statistics about mass shootings existing all around the world should be read as - in those countries that had access to them.

    Of course, just my view.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  21. Daiem, do you know how many guns are in this country illegally? Do you think they'll turn them in for any reason? Meanwhile, we will be...


    Dear B..(and hi!)

    "...to the right to "keep and bear arms" that you are proposing we apply to the "right to trial"?

    I am missing something, I think. You say I'm proposing we apply the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS to the RIGHT TO TRIAL? How so?

    I believe the right to trial must never ever be taken away but that when we SEE THE PERP did what he did, then why? We could have shrinks review the case and suggest a solution, for example, if mental health is an issue. A TRIAL? Of what? One after the other coming up and saying "Yup, he's the one...and my sister was lying in a pool of blood and..." Do we need to hear that 75 times?
    I'm not saying we need to kill Holmes! (maybe that's what you meant connecting ARMS to TRIAL?) Not at all.
    i'm only for the death penalty, in fact, if someone has more than 2 witnesses see him do the crime.

    I'm leaving for a while; if I don't respond to you comment I hope to get from mine, I'm not leaving for good! Looking forward to hearing from you.
    Tell me exactly what you did mean with your statement of what you think I applied to the right to trial, okay?
    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  22. To the resident Contrarian,

    Thanks for the blinding historical revelation! I'll bet that NONE of the rest of us had any previous knowledge, whatsoever,of these pearls of erudition that you have so, graciously, bestowed.

    PLEEEEEEEEASSSSSSE!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Damien Charles is correct to point out that Americans are in no danger of “losing their right” to bear arms, although I should note that incorporation of the Second Amendment did not occur until 2010 in the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. I find the term “gun lobby” interesting. It is presented to us as if a small cadre of people championing the right to bear arms in opposition to a clear majority, who do not. Nothing is farther from the truth. The gun lobby in the United States consists of a clear majority of American people.

    Damien Charles is also correct to note that states are free to determine for themselves how to guarantee this right to citizens. This makes perfect sense if one agrees that the people of these states are free to determine for themselves how to regulate gun ownership, possession, and use. As an example, not all states that authorize concealed carry licenses allow gun owners to “stand their ground.” The citizens of states determine this, through their elected state legislators.

    Not surprisingly, the most restrictive states include California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey. In spite of this restriction, all of these states appear to have significant numbers of violent crimes, but we should note that the process of collecting this information is sometimes confusing. Where does one draw the line between robbery (which we assume involves the use of a weapon of some sort), and “violent” crimes? California law enforcement ranks itself sixth in robberies, 15th in violent crimes, and 42nd in forcible rapes. How are forcible rapes not violent? The answers to these questions are irrelevant —unless you are a citizen of California. Because of the process of collecting data and reporting it to the FBI, comparing one state to another has limited value.

    Meanwhile, the debate continues. One incident of imprudent use of a deadly weapon does not justify tossing out the Second Amendment —even if such were possible following McDonald v. Chicago. The fact is that 99.9% of the people who own firearms, and/or licensed to carry them, are mature, responsible citizens who fully understand the laws and ramifications of deadly force. This has not changed since Aurora, Colorado, or Sanford, Florida.

    ReplyDelete
  24. NOTICE:

    I've been offline for the past seven hours or so. Real life does interfere with blogging ;^)

    I'll be playing catch up here as soon as I can.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear "Z",
    OH, ok , I see where you're confused by what I said. Sorry about that, I should have phrased it a little better, grammatically speaking. My bad! ( The words "you didn't build that" come to mind...haha)
    I wasn't saying that we should somehow consolidate the two respective "rights" ("right to bear arms" and "right to trial") or corporate them into eachother (which, if i'm correct, is what you thought I was implying).
    I was refering to your statement that you believe we as a society/government should try to find a healthy "medium" or balance between respecting the Constitution's promise of a "right to trial" and yet also employing "common sense" and minimally modifying our application of that right to adjust to the many unique situations that arise as a result of living in our modern, technologically-advanced world.
    In fact, I was not only REFERING to your sentiments, but also AGREEING with them. I DO believe that it is possible for us to find a healthy "balance" between respecting the "rights" attributed to individuals/guaranteed in the constitution and also employing "common sense" in how we go about respecting those rights today.
    I was simply requesting that we take that same approach (of finding a balance/medium between "respecting rights" and "employing common sense" that recognizes modernity) to the constitutionally-guaranteed "right to bear arms" as well. I was hoping that we (you and I) could agree upon extendeding that same principle of "finding a healthy medium" (or in my words a "healthy balance") to not only the "right to trial" but also to the "right to keep and bear arms". And in way that predominantly (and most importantly) respects our constitutional Rights and our liberty yet at the same time also adjusts to the realization that we live in a far different world than the one in which the constitution was written. That's all. I don't know, I really am just brain-storming, my mind isn't really "made-up" yet on many of these important issues, just engaging in a dialectic.

    ~ "B"

    ReplyDelete
  26. The weapons that were used in the Aurora Massacre consisted of AR15, Glock 40 calibre, and Remington 870.

    The fact is Holmes had an AR-15 assault weapon and we do not know if it was automatic or semi automatic. Regardless it had a 100 bullet drum and even if semi-automatic could theoretically kill 60 people a minute, murder another 40 people in the next minute before running out of ammo and another drum added. Then another 60 dead in one minute, another 40 in the next minute.

    We may know more since the above was published online.

    So, does anyone here know the particulars as to the weapons used or in the possession of Holmes at the theater site?

    ReplyDelete
  27. HERE is information as to how to buy online weapons (and possibly ammunition). Note that the state can be specified as the page is interactive.

    FYI: FFL = federal firearm license(d)

    ReplyDelete
  28. We should not allow Bill O’Reilly to establish the narrative on this topic any more than we should allow Ducky to read to us the law —for the same reasons. It is the role of the Supreme Court to tell us what the Constitution says and the intent of the framers in 1789. Still, we can learn for ourselves what the founding fathers were thinking by reading what they had to say.

    Realizing how easy it is to cherry pick quotations, I nevertheless think these two quotations are relevant to this discussion. The first, by Thomas Jefferson, is, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” The second, by George Washington, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant, and a dangerous master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

    The founding fathers wanted to ensure a limited role for central government. It was, from the outset, opposed to the authoritarianism imposed upon our British cousins. Conservative Americans seek to limit federal government, not expand it —and this is the entire purpose of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, including our right to “keep and bear arms.” Those of us who regard ourselves as conservative think the Supreme Court has decided wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wow! I normally agree with O'Reilly, but you know what?

    I completely support the 2nd amendment and I believe if some psychotic person is determined to get a weapon, any weapon, they are going to get, either through the black market, or somewhere.

    Americans have the right to Bear Arms and that better had never change. If someone had, had a concealed licensed weapon in that theater, many lives would have been spared. I don't doubt that for a minute.

    We have the right to protect ourselves because there are people in this nation and all around the world that do want to harm innocent people and we should have the right to protect ourselves, aggressively in necessary.

    I will NOT hesitate to shoot an intruder in my home. You had better believe I will empty my clip to protect myself and my children.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Have to admit, Sam, it is a pleasure pointing out to you that the founding oligarchs often had feet of clay.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "So, does anyone here know the particulars as to the weapons used or in the possession of Holmes at the theater site?"

    An AR-15 is the semi automatic version of the fully automatic military M-16. High capacity, after market, magazines have the propensity to 'jam' and are not, normally, used in military operations. It has been my expierence that they are worthless. Holmes' weapon is reported to have jammed. They do, however, add grist to the arguments of those ignorant of the facts. It was widely reported [here] in Denver that Holmes was in possession of 6,000 rounds (caliber not specified) at the crime scene. Not to minimize the excessiveness of that quantity but it was far from the 60,000 in O'Reilly's rant!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Damien:
    You do not need a liscense to own a gun in America--thank God. Some states require hunting liscenses and that's not the same thing. What you propose is another step to Federal Oversight, which is against our constitution. When laws leave the local and state control and go to DC, the people lose. Period.
    Gun buy backs don't work and are a silly PR ploy. What a waste.
    And excuse me, but I do believe you may not understand what a semi-automatic weapon is. You have to pull the trigger each time you wish to shoot. It doesn't spray bullets like a fully automatic.
    You are obviously for complete disarmament of citizens except for sport? Not in my America.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Excellent ploy, Ducky … and so very sophisticated. Since you are unable to defeat the argument, go for the ad hominem.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sometimes I like to listen to Bill O'Reilly. Sometimes, I think he has blown a gasket.

    This was one of those time.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Damien starts with: "people panic when they see the word gun-control."

    D, everybody on this side of the Atlantic knows that those words are code for taking away one's guns. We don't like control, and that's a rational opinion with which virtually the entire nation agrees.

    Damien sayeth: "say an automatic weapon when it is illegal means that you have illegally purchased, illegally concealed and illegally used. That both makes the criminal more identifiable for the authorities..."

    Huh? Let's see if I can paraphrase.

    If somebody has an illegal weapon, they are criminal because it was illegal to buy it, and will make the criminal more identifiable to the authorities who don't have a clue who is doing things illegally.

    I think Damien made Silverfiddle's case for him.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I had several personal phone calls to deal with tonight.

    Now, it is getting late in the evening (for me, anyway, as I'm an early riser).

    Back tomorrow to state my own views in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Freedom,

    your assumption that when things go "federal oversight" things go wrong is interesting. Do you have evidence on that? If you read what I said, there is local controls but a federal agency oversights in regards to "policing the control" and potentially punishment to abuse.

    That is also why I do not say using guns for "sport", I am not sure how you came to that conclussion. Hand guns for self defence, rifles for farmers, ranchers, hunters and other sports.

    As for gun-buy-backs, no they have worked extremely well in Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Norway.

    Licensing and controls actually work as well. Switerland are amongst the highest level of gun-ownership per person in the world as they also have compulsary military service and it was before an objective to have everyone one prepared to defend their country's neutral status (cold war throwback). They have licensing, a requirement to have the local police chief and a medical certificate for it and it must be renewed each year. Their homes are also subject to inspection to prove their guns are in a safety cabinet or at the gun-club.

    OBVIOUSLY it would not work the same in the US and it cannot happen overnight but changes can happen and any changes would be a good.

    The things that would not make such a scheme work is simply the issue of state/federal laws (though that can be changed), your current polarized politics, the loud obnoxious far right groups that want to remain isolationist and keep things the same (to their benefit) and the two major issues - who will pay for it and who will sacrifice their election votes to start the ball rolling.

    Cheers

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bob,

    perhaps I did not explain myself very well. Also my point comes from a legal and prosecuting point of view.

    Yes absolutely there will be the criminal element who will do what they want, get what they want and so on.

    The problem is that because currently semi and automatic weapons are legally available the general public can have them along with the criminal element. Ie they all have or can have them.

    When you make them illegal, only the crims have them which in fact helps the situation in two ways.

    1. It helps the authorities quickly distinguish something illegal and can respond - ie, he has an automatic weapon and he is a criminal and no need to first question and then react, they just react. It is also more dangerous for criminals, they must go more underground, always be on the lookout, on the run etc.
    2. As they are illegal the general public no longer has basic access (unless they become criminals..) and therefore it is out of the hand of those whom have a breakdown/go bezerk/psycho or whatever you want to call it. Though these prominent cases that involve killings like this are from those that put some thought to it, they usually are traceable to legal activities not illicet ones and thus may have chosen a different way to go psychotic and less deadly.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  39. "As for gun-buy-backs, no they have worked extremely well"

    OK, I get it. If only there was a "gun-buy-back" program here in Colorado Holmes would have scrapped his four months of planning and turned in his guns, ammo and bombs-RIGHT! Oh, and that guy in Norway couldn't have possibly killed 69 persons and injured 110 others because Norway HAS a gun-buy-back program. Liberals would be amusing if they weren't so dangerous!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well, I just give up. Jack Whyte's already said what I was going to say; I agree with you and Jack W about Bill O'Reilly, JonBerg; can we make the execution in the next 36 to 48 hours, Odie? (We could make it sooner, but I need to mow the lawn.)

    A truly AUTOMATIC weapon, such as the belt-fed M-60 (now outdated) or SAW, in the hands of an unqualified person is going to put more holes in the ceiling than people. Everybody gets their panties in a wad about these "assault rifles-guns-things." They are no different than a deer rifle. If I wanted to, I can turn my deer rifle into a fully automatic rifle. I think I'll just continue to use my "assault rifle-gun-one shot at a time thing," though.

    My question would be -- how did an out of school, out of work, guy on the skids come up with about 20 thou for "assault gear/weapons" and still pay the rent and eat and buy stuff for explosives? I ain't starving, but all my credit cards have a max on 'em and all of 'em together wouldn't get me half way there. I must be doing something wrong!

    I got a solution for gun control. There ought to be only one gun in the whole world. And it would belong to me.

    ReplyDelete
  41. O'reilly needs to check his facts. Chaffetz is right, as every gun enthusiast including myself knows. Fully automatic firearms can NOT be simply purchased from gun shops, you DO have to obtain a special permit and they aren't easy to get. You have to show that you have a genuine reason to have the weapon, that's within Federal guidelines.

    As far as gun control goes, I'm all for it. I will control my guns, you control your guns, everybody's happy.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Black Sheep said "I'll control my guns, you control yours." Priceless!

    The intent of our constitution is to protect personal liberties within the structure of government that is as small as possible. (Boy, have we messed that up!)

    Damien, the gun liscensing & home inspections that you describe in Switzerland is chilling to say the least. 1-I have the right to privacy in my own home. 2-It sure is harder to defend against a home invader if your weapon is locked up and not armed.

    Our constitution protects us against illegal search & seizure without a warrant.Of course, that is why patriots are so upset about the Patriot Act and the ever-growing powers of the DHS. Now a warrant can be written by any federal agent without a judge's oversight. That's another area that needs to be addressed.Unfortunately, only one Republican candidate for president--Ron Paul--ever talked about it. It's going to take an overhaul of congress to get it right.

    AOW-Thank you for providing this excellent forum. The comments have been quite a read!

    ReplyDelete
  43. The weapons the public can buy are no match for military grade weapons. The Right to Bear Arms may have been to prevent Government from establishing tryanny but we have already seen someone like Barry can do that by Executive Order. Guns now are so we can protect ourselves from criminals and a legal system that is little more than a revovling door.

    Taking a gun away from a man/woman does one thing for the government, it reduces them pyschologically. Sort of like getting someone hooked on welfare, you are dependent on government only you are dependent on government for your security instead of food...

    and make no mistake its all about getting you enslaved to government

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sorry for the double post but that is sort of my trademark...for a few minutes later I always think of more to say

    You see, to buy a gun is a private decision to defend yourself and not wait for government agents. You have taken personal responsibility and not just for yourself but the care and safekeeping of the weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  45. BOTH, my sentiments, EXACTLY, blogginator.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Finally! I'm getting back to this thread.

    An excellent discussion has been going on here, IMO. Please understand that I don't have time right now to respond to every comment.

    Anyway, here are my views on the topic....

    1. There is NO WAY to monitor everybody who buys a gun -- legal purchase or otherwise.

    2. There are MANY, MANY folks who own weapons, including the heavy-duty types. In comparison the numbers of such individuals who go out and do "the bad thing" are absolutely vestigial. Sure, when these very, very few events happen, the havoc and tragedy wrought is horrendous. But do we as a Second Amendment nation really DESIRE to penalize the vast majority via Draconian measures. Seems to me that such a reaction is a knee jerk reaction -- or a crisis-management reaction. Having worked for years for a place in crisis-management mode, I can tell you that such a method drives everybody over the edge!

    3. O'Reilly has zero clue as to the nuances of the gun laws on the books, albeit there are variances in every state.

    4. Now, it does seem to me that a 100-round clip (or whatever you call it) is over the top.

    Frankly, I find it very difficult to believe that the government isn't tracking that kind of purchase. Big Brother is everywhere, isn't he? I wonder this: Was the government doing some tracking and dropped the ball?

    BTW, we should be thankful that Holmes used a 100-round clip as that type is likely to jam, which it did. Apparently, the 20-round and 10-round clips are more reliable with regard to proper firing. It seems to me that a 20-round clip should be the most of plenty for gun enthusiasts who like to bang away quickly at targets.

    How much damage did he actually do with that clip? I don't know. I read that he fired the 850 gauge shotgun first and did most of the damage with that weapon. Maybe somebody in this thread can clarify those matters for me.

    Marine4ever [Welcome!] said:

    If I wanted to, I can turn my deer rifle into a fully automatic rifle.

    I've heard about that. Not sure how easy it is to get those parts, however. Besides, there are quite a few private gunsmiths out there.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And here's another thing....

    Were there no hints anywhere that Holmes was going off the deep end? Because if there were indeed no hints, he is likely playing the system. He may well be trying to establish himself as an Übermensch. Think Leopold and Loeb -- and the Hitchcock film Rope.

    In fact, I recommend watching that Hitchcock film!

    Holmes, as a student of neuroscience, has much knowledge at his disposal. Never forget that.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I still say the best gun control is careful aim.

    And to a certain foul feathered fowl and others, if you don't like guns don't buy one. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." ... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is a separate thought and nothing to do with militias.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Were there no hints anywhere that Holmes was going off the deep end?"

    There may have been such, the disclosure of which, having been interdicted by doctor/patient confidentiality.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jon,
    You are correct.

    But I'm also wondering about acquaintances and family.

    I do find it interesting that (1) Holmes had recently been studying the effects of mind-altering drugs in his neuroscience class(es) and (2) that the psychiatrist involved has had some kind of past about prescribing medications inappropriately. See THIS for the details about the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Have to admit, Sam, it is a pleasure pointing out to you that the founding oligarchs often had feet of clay."

    Duck, ALL humans have feet of clay. There are just those among us that can count other parts as clay as well.

    I find it intriguing, we have an incident like Aurora or Columbine and there is an immediate call on the left for more stringent gun control even outlawing gun ownership by some.

    Yet when Muslim clerics call for "death to America" and Muslims bomb the WTC, try to sink a Navy destroyer, then fly planes into the twin towers, another tries to blow a plane out of the sky with his underwear, another tries to set off a bomb in Times Square, an army psychiatrist guns down 13 unarmed soldiers while shouting Allah Akbar (I could go on but I'll stop) We are told not to get our panties in a wad, told not to overreact, told that Islam is a religion of peace, told not to paint all Muslims with the same broad brush and told that profiling any young Muslim for terrorist connections male is racism.

    I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists, but I see a disconnect in response to the threat level. Up is now down and down is up in our society. In truth, we cannot absolutely predict and prevent attacks by madmen like McVeigh, Holmes and Klebold and Harris. Law enforcement by its nature is more reactive than proactive. If enforcement agencies become too proactive, you are on the way to tyranny.

    May 18, 1927 - farmer and school board member Andrew Kehoe killed his wife then blew up the elementary school of Bath Michigan, killing 53 people (39 children) and injuring another 54. My point is that even in the "good old days" we had mass murder and lunatics will find a way unless we are really, really lucky.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Alligator,
    We are... told not to paint all Muslims with the same broad brush...

    Indeed.

    But when it comes to guns, the broad brush starts moving with rapidity.

    Sick of the double standard!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Marine4ever asked where Holmes got the money to buy all this hardware. He had a government grant of approximately $26,000 a year.

    Like Obama is fond of saying, you can't succeed on your own. You need government to help you.

    There may be legitimate questions concerning gun control of clips and such but these are laregely a distraction. Holmes had a apartment filled with bombs and had he not been able to buy a gun he could easily have used a bomb and killed more people.

    I just wish the libs muttering about gun control would go to Chicago and tell these gang members to turn in their illegal weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  54. JonBerg,

    I suggest you read posts and not imagine what they said as it makes you look totally stupid. Gun buy-backs and laws are to get rid of the bulk of weapons from the general population. It is only then that concentration can be made on illegal weapons and controlling those that abuse the law.

    Try harder please and kneejerk reactions on who you think is liberal only tells who is the jerk.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  55. Freedom, the authorities on Switerland can also not enter and search a residence without a warrent, as do most countries including my own.

    What is done is that when the authority comes knocking and wishes to see the weapon and how you protect it you should show them in. If you do not, after a second try you are given a notice to explain and actions are then taken to provide a writ to seize your weapon and revoke your license. Nobody said that a bunch of federal agents will force their way into your house demanding to see your guns.

    Cheers

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  56. Blogginator,

    Most people on the planet assume that at first the authorities are their to provide "law and order" and "civil protection". Protecting yourself with guns is mostly an American idea and if go further down that track it is an admission on your part that your country has failed when it comes to protecting itself.

    Personally I think most Americans do not consider their country a failure, even as an outsider I do not.

    Your problem is that the "right" has been exagerated from the day go. One person on Fox actually explained it like giving the right to everyone to light a fire will eventually burn the country down, or everyone having the right to free candy only makes a country fat. I think such a comparison does not work but the point is that when one gives "rights" they should also give "responsibilities" and a "punishment" for those that do not respect it, such as taking away that right.

    The other problem you face is in your psychie that somehow the words of your founding fathers must be taken literally without consideration of the context and situations that it was created in. It was created during a revolution from tyranny by us Brits and since there was at that point no 50 States, emancipation, quality legal framework, etc, etc, etc, the fear was that a new tyranny would come into place. You do not have that tyranny (besides exagerated ranting about Obama which is frankly a joke) and thus the logic behind even the "bear arms" has changed. Also, as I mentioned, if the founding fathers had knowledge about 21st century weapons it would have been a different situation. If there was a founding father's statement about a clear sky would the US ban planes?

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  57. I agree that wide sweeping generalizing (painting with the same brush, etc) is wrong.

    That is why my first comment was that taking away guns in America will not work. Having said that, gun violence is a part of America and unique to that country and something should be learned. It should not be that a kneejerk reaction to the Colorado event is to have some better system, it is that some better system has always been needed but mulitiple reasons (excuses in my book) it has never been done and it take such an event to raise it again.

    As I have been attempting to explain, by placing limits on weapon types only makes for a safer place. Does one need an AK47 to protect one's home or will a 38 handgun and a baseball bat under the bed suffice?

    Sure criminals will be criminals and they will have the guns but then the punishments, responses, public outrage and thus dissuations will also come. As I pointed out to one person above, it is when such weapons are out of the general populous that authorities can make real inroads to tackling the importation, distribution and use of illegal firearms.

    When Australia and Britain did so things changed dramatically. Though there is still gun violence, the noose tightens on the sources and the punishments are a real deterent. In the UK violence with an illegal firearm automatically removes any early release to a sentance, I believe Australia has that same law.

    In all honesty nothing will change because it is imbedded into your culture and the misguided notion of what is freedom and rights (rather than libery and responsibility) has doomed your nation into being quasi-vigilanty with a notion that somehow everyone is in danger from crime, terrorism and your own government. That, by definition, does not make for a great nation.

    With respect

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous,

    "I suggest you read posts and not imagine what they said as it makes you look totally stupid. Gun buy-backs and laws................."

    Well, so anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid" and/or a "jerk". In consideration of that I'll take the desperate, ad hominem tone of your comment to be nothing more than an irrational dig! BTW, I get the idea that you don't even live in this Country. Is that true?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Damien’s response is typical of Euro-trash. How many times have Americans come to Europe with their guns to restore to you the liberties you weren’t man enough to safeguard on your own? You people are useless, miserable creatures.

    Let’s see now, Gibraltar —the mountain of Tariq, conquered by everyone since the Phoenicians, where we find citizens happily subservient to their government —willing to do whatever the government tells them, and happy to spend their lives on bended knee. It is well that Damien chooses to remain in Europe, at the foot of Tariq’s mountain where he can remain in touch with his feminine side. I hope all the pansy lefties join him there as soon as possible.

    I suppose we can explain Damien’s ignorance and utter stupidity by the fact that he doesn’t know American history—prompting me to suggest that he keep his fucking mouth shut in the future. It is likely Damien never held a gun, much less fired one —and it is almost a certainty he has never put his own miserable life on the line for anyone else. Had he any experiences like this, he might realize that a well-armed citizenry defending itself does not equate to vigilantism. But there were instances of vigilantism in America; it was the result of duly elected governments refusing to do their jobs. In America, the people take charge whenever government abandon’s their responsibility. At the mountain of Tariq, the people only whine for mercy or beg the Americans to save them —again.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Good to see lots of comments already, these tragedies always bring out the anti-gun people but I seriously don't think gun control will mean these sort of things won't happen, if anything they will give people a false sense of security. People who want to hurt innocent people will think of all sorts of ways to do it. We need to promote vigilance by everyone, if they see suspicious behavior to report it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Jack Whyte,


    "Gibraltar"


    Suspicion confirmed, thanks. I'm a new kid on this block. While Damien is welcome to freely comment here, thanks to the 1st Amendment rights affored by the United States Constitution, I will probably consider most of it as being 'moot'.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @JB and JW --
    I'll just consider ALL of it being more Looney Left trash talk.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Just found THIS over at Feed Your ADHD:

    "Let's Ban Doctors, Cars, and Knives before We Ban AK-47s"

    Filled with FACTS!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Good information, AOW. Of course, you do understand that it won't matter to the leftists, right? They're holding their ears and shouting LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Jon Berg, we are happy to have you here and hope you'll be a frequent reader.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." —George Washington

    "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." —John Adams

    "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." —George Mason

    To Damien Charles and all others of his ilk: get stuffed.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Damien, you need to understand that fully automatic weapons, i.e., machine guns, are illegal.

    The guns used in the mass murders in the US have all been of the semi-automatic variety, meaning that you have to pull the trigger for each shot. Plus, some guns have legal limitations on the number of rounds you can have in the gun's magazine.

    I don't think restrictions on firearms are appropriate. The reason we have the Second Amendment is because we were subjected to oppressive rule by Great Britain.

    We have the right to bear arms to throw off the yoke of oppression by our own government. It's not about hunting season. That's one of the lessons of the bloody eight year war called the American Revolution.

    I think we all agree that limiting the availability of fire arms would not alleviate the crazy mass murders we have seen. Crooks and terrorists don't seem to have any problem getting guns and bombs anywhere in the world, including Great Britain, Norway, or any other country.

    I don't know why you are against legal citizens of any country having access to firearms. It is illogical to me.

    ReplyDelete
  68. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Damien: As I go back and read some of your comments, I realize that you have no clue what the United States of America is all about. You don't understand freedom, something my ancestors learned about from your ancestors. If we don't have the means to protect ourselves, we can wind up as feckless as the Brits.

    Don't be deluded that all Australians are as ignorant as the Brits about firearms. You can ask my friend MK, proprietor of the blog The Right Wing Theocrat about the stupidity of giving up one's fire arms, and what happens to innocent people who rely on the government to defend its citizens.

    If you can you need to get out of your intellectual incubator, and see what the real world is like. Delta is ready when you are.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Mrs. AOW
    I'm sorry, I know that I was probably more vulgar or used more profanity than you would care to have to see. But I just figured that since "Jack" used two "bad" words ("pansy" and "fucking"), that I would be pardoned my use of as many in retort. (Though, as you can see, I did exceed that limit with my inclusion of the latter half of "dip*****", so for that I apologize.) Please forgive me, for I usually do not like to bring myself to the level of such abhorrant, ignominous, vituperative attacks (since I feel that such truculence is pernicious to the hope of achieving a more civil discourse), but in this case it kinda just felt right.

    ~ "B"

    ReplyDelete
  71. @ Anonymous --
    In regards to your 'Dear Jack Whyte' in the above:
    AH HA! I knew IT! All your other stuff just DRIPPED with it. Thanks for confirming.

    ReplyDelete
  72. OK, after all learning about Daminen, which I did today, why would anyone give him any recognition? I sure don't intend to do so. This guy sounds like, about, a twelve year old who thinks it's fun to irritate the US who saved his ancestors. I've got one from WWW1 and two from WWII buried over there so this idiot can now be free to mock us. I'm sorry if this comment is considered " invective"; kick me off if you will,I've been through much worse, believe me!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dear Marine4Ever,
    Yea buddy, YA GOT ME!!! Nothing gets past you! I've been trying SO HARD to hide it up until now that I waited 'till TWO FREAKIN' AOW BLOG POSTS AGO to reveal it!! (which is a really commendable achievment on my part considering i've only ever commented on THREE blog posts and have only been visiting this blog for a FEW WEEKS.)
    So yeah, your sense of perception really is impecable! In fact, your "gaydar" is SO on point that I think you could teach ME a thing or two about finding potential partners!
    (In conclusion: Dude, I don't just "Drip" with it... I Hurricane Bertha, tropical-storm, flash-flood style terrential down-POUR with it!!!)

    Much Love,
    "B"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for confirming -- now I know I don't have to respond to anything else that may come outta your brain housing group.

      You can go ahead and trash this Mrs. AOW -- I'm outta here.

      Delete
  74. QUICK COMMENT HERE TO THREE OF YOU:

    "B,"
    I have deleted one of your comments.

    I don't want this forum to turn into a forum dedicated to vulgarities and personal insults.

    This site is not rated "R."

    Jack Whyte,
    I let your comment stand. However, in the future, let's curb foul language as it gives this forum a tone that I'm trying to avoid.

    Marine4ever,
    "B" has been honest about various matters.

    I have met "B" face to face -- at a Romney rally, in fact. See THIS THREAD for more information.

    ReplyDelete
  75. PS: I'm on my first cup of coffee here at this ungodly hour.

    Anyway, this web site encourages commenting and values visitors, but there is a caveat at the top of the comment form:

    Caveat: Continued invectives and personal attacks will result in deletion -- as will abusive language and vulgarities.

    PPS: I am not chiding any of you, just pointing out the policy here.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Sam,
    you do understand that it won't matter to the leftists, right? They're holding their ears and shouting LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.

    Well, I found that out last week when two different people at this site and at another started hurling epithets at me specifically because I cited data to support my contentions.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Sam Huntington,

    Thanks my friend! It's a pleasure to be here,

    ReplyDelete
  78. No worries, AOW, i'd definently do the same if it was my blog (and I most certainly would have deleted my comment).

    ~ "B"

    ReplyDelete
  79. Marine4ever,
    No need for me to trash your comment. You certainly have the freedom to state what you stated.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Jack Whyte is the best example of what puts back the general IQ level of America. I do not know him, he does not me and yet a barriage of explitifs that I assume AOW obviosly would have deleted had she seen them.

    Apart from that his arguments are pretty worthless as well.

    Bagging Gibraltar and its history as somehow to be relevant today equates to saying that Americans come from a land that people squatted behind a tree to take a dump considering that the Native Indians did so.

    Frankly speaking I thought people would put up a logical argument, and some have, rather than go for the brutish go to hell response rather than justify it. Unfortunately Sam chose to follow it as well.

    Using arguments about Europe, especially about Anglo-American relations 200 plus years ago simply makes you look stupid.

    The only history argument comes down to your traditions and culture and if that is reason enough then fine, but at least be a bit mature and proud, saying it sheepishly and hiding means your not even confident in that.

    That automatic weapons are banned is great, it is not an excuse. That most people will consider taking away semi-automatic weapons as being an infringement of their rights is worth debating but as someone agreed with me, does it really go against the right to bear arms?

    My point for making my comments was to encourage debate and to express my opinin, as was we were all invited to do so on this blog. That by expressing my view I get thrown the "f-bomb" and Sam telling me to "get stuffed" really tells a lot about them and thier inability to excercise freedom of opinion, freedom of debate and freedom to disagree or not.

    Back on the subject, the majority of Americans appear to want something done. Your crime stats on fire-arms speaks for itself and the rest of the dveloped world (not that most of you give a damn) happens to be a lot safer and very happy that they limit, control and in some cases do not even have a gun.

    A last little quib to the jerk and fools like Jack-thick-head above, I sit on my terrace that overlooks 17kms away the North African country of Morocco. Since I am sure you imagine that North Africa, Arabs and so on must mean deserts, camels, al qaeda, revolution, supression and violence, then I should remind you that owning a hand-gun is banned except for the authorities, rifles with a license and either you must be a farmer/hunter or club member. The last "shoot-out" was against a terrorist 3 years ago and the annual rate of fatality by fire-arm is around 6 accidents a year.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  81. "B,"
    Sorry for the late response. A bit overwhelmed here with real life as opposed to virtual life over the past two days: a verbal wrestling match with Verizon (When I calm down, I plan to blog about it), trying to navigate the intricacies of Medicare benefits so that Mr. AOW can get post-cataract-surgery eyeglasses, conferring with a dear friend whose wife has been in the hospital and in serious condition (She was just weaned from the ventilator yesterday), blog matters of another sort and elsewhere, and getting ready to start homeschool classes in early September. I could go on, but you get the picture.

    Anyway, I like to keep the discourse here quite civil -- by my definition of "civil," of course.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Damien Charles,
    I request that you not insult other commenters too much. No need to go overboard. Americans appreciate one liners, you know.

    As for deleting comments, well, I typically give anyone and everyone one freebie before I start deleting. Due to the matters that I mentioned to "B" in my comment just above this one, I have been unable to monitor my web site as closely as I typically do.

    Sam, of course, is my partner here and has free rein -- and, FYI, admin privileges as well.

    As for firearms, America does seem to be unique in certain ways, in part because of our history and our heritage. Many of us -- including me -- are well armed, but we don't abuse that right. The abuse by a few should not negate the Second Amendment rights of the many, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Addendum to Damien Charles:

    the majority of Americans appear to want something done

    "Appears" is the key word, and I'm glad you used it. A quite vociferous group does want change, but I'm not sure that comprises the majority -- not by a long shot.

    Later. A VERY busy day for this household tomorrow and this weekend (Possibly TWO outings for my husband!), and I need to tend to a few things.

    ReplyDelete
  84. AOW


    It has been reported that, here in Colorado, firearms and ammo sales have gone up >40% since the theater incident. I wouldn't look for any of that "Buy Back" nonsense to happen here very soon!

    ReplyDelete
  85. AOW,

    Personally I think there will not be much change anyhow, much for the tradition and culture in your country and what I also believe is your flawed State-Federal system.

    It most certainly is easy to say what I did from over here in locations that do not have the number of weapons nor that culture and thus making us fortunate to have problems because of it. We can never compare the US to anyhwere else and even though I think we are far better off than you because of it, even that does not really stick.

    Regardless of what I think about some of the responses here, it also shows how emotive things are AND as you have implied, interest groups and the media can distort things to another level - as they do with so much more.

    That you give Sam, whom believes that Obama is a Muslim plant, foreigners should not be able to discuss US foreign policy and tells people to "get stuffed" because they have a point of view is simply your problem and ultimately a reflection of the quality of this blog. I will say no more on that. As for my language, yes I push the limit to the border, that is how, as my first law professor used to say "you provoke the nest and see who are the workers, defenders or there just to eat honey". I make no apology for my language style.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  86. My neighbor put up the following sign in front of his house:

    DUE TO THE PRICE INCREASE OF AMMUNITION DO NOT EXPECT A
    WARNING SHOT

    ReplyDelete
  87. See, AOW? Didn't I tell you he was a little girl?

    ReplyDelete
  88. @ Danien Charles on your last rambling --

    Okay... So, you make no apology for your language style. What about your WRITING style? Yours is the most convoluted that I have EVER tried to read.

    I know... I know.

    "Continued invectives and personal attacks..."

    BUT...

    ReplyDelete
  89. NOTICE:

    I am not babysitting my blog right now. Too much going on here on the home front. For example, we were at the hospital ALL DAY yesterday as Mr. AOW resumed PT and OT. This crazy schedule will continue sporadically for the foreseeable future.

    Sam, of course, is around.

    Police yourselves as much as possible.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Sam,
    I'm catching up on comments at this ungodly hour.

    And, yes, I see the whining and insults above. Those speak for themselves.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective