Our Second Amendment
What?! You mean Charlie didn’t part the Red Sea with a rifle? Okay, I admit - when it comes to graphic art, I’d best keep my day job. Give me a little credit though … at least I got the fingers to look like they were in front of the gun! ;-)
During a December 2005 discussion between Dr. Crippen from NHS Blog Doctor, Dr. Rangel from Rangel MD and myself, Dr. Crippen made the following statement:
At the risk of throwing a real hot potato in, the gun crimes and killing sprees in the USA are due to your gun laws; no more, no less. All that nonsense the gun lobby puts out about the Second Amendment giving them the right to keep assault weapons in the glove compartment is because most of them are too illiterate to read the first half of the sentence. This is not about respect for life, or euthanasia, or Roe & Wade, it is about the stupidity of allowing anyone who pleases free access to guns.
My own reply was as follows:
I agree with Dr.Crippen that the gun question is indeed a “hot potato,†and perhaps more than this particular thread needs, since it’s already quite “loaded.†Dr. Crippen, why don’t you share with us just what it is you think about “all that nonsense the gun lobby puts out†in a post on your blog, and I’ll be delighted to come visit with you and carry on a discussion from the perspective of an average US citizen who believes in the Second Amendment, and who also hunts. I can bring the pizza, and you could provide the tea.
Well Dr. Crippen … here I am with the pizza! I do hope you remembered the tea, we’re going to need something to wash it all down with. Actually, a pint might be even nicer … :o)
Since I’ve never heard the gun lobby’s nonsense about “assault weapons” in “glove compartments,” I’m really at a loss on how to answer that charge. Concealed carry is illegal throughout the entire US, with the possible exception of Vermont. In order to have a loaded, concealed gun, you need a permit, which is not an easy thing to acquire in any state. Carrying loaded guns in cars is another story altogether. When we hunt, we have to have the rilfes out in the open, and the rounds locked in the trunk (the boot.) It would be difficult to really make a study of gun laws here, because each state has its own details. I’m not really interested in getting into those details, because that’s beyond the scope of this discussion. What I’d like to say is far more simple …
I don’t belong to the NRA, and I’ve never been active politically for the sake of the 2nd Amendment, however, if I felt that my right to own a firearm were threatened, I would step up to the plate. I sincerely believe that one of the reasons the crime rate is so low in our area is because it’s common knowledge that all of these Yankee farmers are hunters, and that they all have guns in their homes. A criminal will think twice before breaking into a home owned by someone who is armed, and a capable marksman.
Think the following scenario through: let’s say that the state of Illinois decides that they want an unarmed citizenry. Through whatever means, they inform the residents that all gun owners are to turn in their weapons, or face prosecution.
Now, just who do you think is going to obey this mandate?
The criminal? Think again …
The law abiding citizen, the very one who would never use his gun for anything illegal, will be the one who turns it in.
Suddenly, the playing field has changed - the criminal, who is not about to turn his weapons in, now realizes that Mr. John Doe Legal has willingly disarmed himself. What an advantage! Now only the criminal has a distance weapon - unless, that is, if Mr. Doe takes up knife throwing.
If you disarm the honest citizenry, you raise the armed criminal to a superior position of power. There are no longer any serious deterrents keeping those with evil intent from preying upon the innocent.
On a personal note, I live in an ancient house … it was here before the US was a nation, and before Maine split away from Massachusetts. It’s in truly deplorable shape, and I have no means whatsoever of locking doors or windows. We’re out in the country, and my husband works nights. However, I can still lay down at night and go to sleep, because I know that I am able to defend myself, and when my children were small, I knew that I was capable of protecting them. Anyone who breaks into here would place his life in serious danger. I do not recommend it.
And as far as guns for sport - my husband and I have been hunters as long as we’ve been together. It took me a very long while to balance my sympathy for the deer, or the moose, with a bit of common sense … but I was finally able to realize that the only differences between my own putting meat in the freezer, and buying it at the store were 1) cost, and 2) esthetics. The meat I buy in the grocery case was no less alive at one time … than the meat I can provide by hunting. The major difference is that I did the work myself, and that I’m not seeing it disguised, nicely wrapped in clear, sanitary looking pastic - which makes it so easy for people to forget just what it is they’re buying.
If anything, it’s made me appreciate the life the creature all the more. I now know what the cost was behind my freezer full of venison. Being a soft hearted city girl, that took some major “getting over,” and I still have to fight a lump in my throat when I see a creature die.
All of that said, although hunting and target practicing are the only ways we ever really use our guns, we do know how to use them, and we are able to protect ourselves. If the government instituted gun control, many of us who are law abiding citizens would become instant criminals out of fear for our lives, and the rest of us would become easy targets for the real criminals who are just lurking in the wings, waiting for the bleeding liberals to force a peaceful citizenry to disarm.
And finally - I hate platitudes, but I just can’t help myself, I’m going to have to pull this one out, because being a platitude doesn’t make it any less true: guns do not kill people, people kill people. If somehow, you manage to remove all guns from everyone … including the criminals … those who want to kill people will just use a different means. Pipe bombs … ricin … they will find a way. That is the ugly truth. Banning guns will not solve that problem - it will just remove one more means of defense from an increasingly defenseless populace.
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
Addendum - March 4, 2006:
Through William at Amazing Facts … thank you, William!
Brady Gun Control Campaign All Wet, Say Nation’s Top Cops
3/2/2006 5:30:00 PM
To: State Desk, Legal Reporter
Contact: Richard Pearson of Illinois State Rifle Association, 815-635-3198 Web: http://www.isra.org
SPRINGFIELD, Ill., March 2 /U.S. Newswire/ — The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):
The very foundations of the gun control movement were rocked today by the results of a survey taken by the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP). In a nutshell, the survey shows that the nation’s top law enforcement officers believe that average citizens can be trusted to responsibly own firearms; that criminals ignore gun control laws; and that concealed carry laws reduce crime.
These revelations come as a stark contrast to gun control movement propaganda that asserts that police officials feel that our streets would be safer if law-abiding citizens were disarmed.
Specifically, the survey revealed that 93 percent of chiefs and sheriffs felt that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for sport and self defense; 73 percent opposed so-called “one gun a month” laws; 96 percent believed that criminals ignore gun control laws and; 63 percent supported laws that allow citizens to carry defensive firearms as a means to control crime.
“These survey results are important and timely for the law- abiding Illinois firearm owner,” said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. “The General Assembly is currently considering HB2414 which would ban most of the guns owned by law-abiding citizens in Illinois. The legislature is also considering legislation that would shut down most of the lawful gun shops in the state. The supposed justification for these two bills is that they would result in a safer society. Well, based on the chiefs’ survey, it would appear that the gun control movement is standing all alone on that assertion.”
“I hope that the Illinois General Assembly is paying close attention to what our top cops have to say,” continued Pearson. “It’s time for the legislature to stop trying to find ways to harass the law-abiding gun owner and start finding ways to keep criminals in jail and off our streets.
—
Since 1903, the ISRA has been the state’s leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
February 6th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Great job with Moses, but I have to inform you that you have “slandered my religion” and a “movie icon” as well by defacing that photo with a gun.
Shame on you.
I have been using guns since I was 8 years old. I have hunted my entire life. I have shot and eaten squirrel, rabbit, deer, ‘coon (*once* It was horrible.) Like Moof, I am a very nice shot if I say so myself.
If you take the guns away then how will honest America take care of itself? There is more than one side to this story. It isn’t just about the criminal element that we face in our suburbs any more.
Because you know that Iran isn’t just making nuclear products to pack into the tips of missiles right?
They will be strapping mini-nuclear bombs to their kids and walking them into school buildings and the like.
Same could happen here in America. And since 9/11 has happened, nobody can say, “It’ll never happen here.
What never ceases to amaze me is the timeless beauty of the Constitution. Surely God was there with those men who sweated over it while it was being penned.
Please read the words of the 2nd amendment and apply them to our current political times. You may see this in a whole new light.
Great post Moof!
later…
February 6th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
*blush* Caught! You’re right, and I’m abjectly apologetic. Poor Charlie. Whatever would he think!
Girl … you’re quick, by the way. I just posted that! *LOL*
Now, we need to give Dr. Crippen time to get his noodles together so that he can tell us what he thinks. We’ll give him some space, since he’s a busy fella.
You made some excellent points, TJ … and all of them are quite valid. I’m beginning to think that 9/11 is already forgotten, and we’re dozing off at the wheel … if we do, it will be to our own detriment.
I’m not a conspiracy freak, but I’m also not blind. We have some rough times ahead of us, and not all from directions we can yet readily foresee.
We’re in for a rough ride.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Hi Moof, just caught up with this at bedtime; I can feel my latent Quakerism stirring here. Dear me, I don’t like guns. I am no American Constitutional lawyer, but I do not think the second amendment was designed to allow the world and his wife to carry an AK47.
I am going to bed but, to quote Arnie, I’ll be back!
:)
John
February 6th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
I have never shot a loaded weapon, but I support the right to bear arms.
John Leo has done some fascinating analysis on “right to carry” laws (sorry, couldn’t find it on Amazon).
Leo demonstrates an inverse relationship between crime rates and prevalence of “right to carry”.
It turns out that criminals are less likely to work in places where they might get shot.
It also turns out that a burgler is more likely to be shot by the owner of a home than he is to do time in the U.S. But that’s another story.
best,
Flea
February 6th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Welcome Dr. Crippen! My my! How good to see you! Can’t wait to get to know your “Quakerish” side.
I noticed that you quoted Arnie as you left … I could even hear a bit of that accent resonating in the air … and I was just wondering, are you going to carry Arnie’s nice big bang-bang during our chit chat? ;o)
And Dr. Flea … I’m still trying to picture you shooting an unloaded gun!!! *scratches head*
It turns out that criminals are less likely to work in places where they might get shot.
It also turns out that a burgler is more likely to be shot by the owner of a home than he is to do time in the U.S.
Ayuh … well. As the Ben Franklin comic in my post so aptly puts it: “The Theory of DUH!” … 0.o
It worries me how few people actually realize that …
February 6th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
To Dr. Crippen: The Anti-Gun Male
Check this out over at Jewish World Review . I think it’s brilliant. I think it makes an excellent riposte to the views expressed in yesterdays post. It’s an older article, but it appears to be making its way ’round the blogoshere again (Head’s bunker linked to it as well).
Source: http://weaponofmassinstruction.blogspot.com/
“LET’S be honest. He’s scared of the thing. That’s understandable–so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don’t have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.
A man does. He has to say things like “One Taniqua Hall is one too many,” as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle’s gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.”
Are you saying the weak and unprepared get their feelings hurt in the presence of the strong? No, that’s just crazy talk.
He often accuses men with guns of “compensating for something.” The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren’t intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can’t touch a gun, he doesn’t want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he’ll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.
Testify, sister, testify!!
“Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don’t account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It’s one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it’s another to impose the same handicap onto others.
People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn’t know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don’t sit cross-legged. That they’re able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.”
Lest anyone be unfamiliar with the American Gun Owner, stay awhile as I edify and enlighten. We tend to be problem solvers. We are multi-talented, especially when it comes to building, fixing and growing stuff. Often we are self employed. Our diversified skill sets make us prosperous. We have to be, shooting and hunting are expensive sports. Everyone I know in the Gun Culture is either a professional or skilled worker. So why do we get branded hicks and hayseeds? Fear. Jealousy.
“Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.
The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn’t be able to later say, “He had a knife–there was nothing I could do!” Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn’t be the option it otherwise is.”
Those who own firearms and participate in shooting sports are the most laid-back people you’ll ever see, ergo they may not fixate and fantasize about self-defense or violent encounters, but they know how to get the job done. We are therefore less dependent on the authorities for safety. This makes the liberal man feel bad, especially when he remembers most of us could produce our own food and housing, should the need arise.
“No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let’s face it: He’s a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn’t want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.”
Nice point. Lots of anti-gunners have a fear of being shot. Why do they fear being shot? Politicians fear this because they are dishonest with our money and pass laws no one wants. I have no fear of being shot. Nobody’s gunnin’ for me because I stay out of people’s hair.
“Of course, it wouldn’t be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That’s the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one’s life and way of life isn’t without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else’s ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).
In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man’s containment”
Truthsomely delicious.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Wow William! That’s quite an article. I’ve never quite thought about it from that perspective before, although I admit that I see a lot of the liberal silliness in our country today (policital correctness, gun control, the environmental extremists) as effeminate.
Thanks for the comment, my dear!
February 6th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Dr. Crippen seems locked on an image of the AK-47 being an assult weapon and capable of rapid fire. The BATF allows AK’s to be sold in the US as a simi-fire weapon ~ meaning one shot at a time. I will point out all weapons are viewed as assult weapons when you are being targeted. I own a AK as well as other weapons, one of which is a 50 cal. black powder cap and ball rifle (single shot) do you think of it as an assult weapon..if I used it as a club? Dr.
Dr. I respect your right to chose not to own firearms, but you have no right to deny me mine………besides, my weapon and I may some day be the reason you get to live another day.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Moof, if there is any pizza left…..email be a slice :-)
February 7th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
OK, so can we have a little data to flesh this stuff out?(BTW, I’m an ex-cop, so don’t go tagging me.)
>It turns out that criminals are less likely to work in places where they might get shot.
Really? Why is our violent crime rate higher than Japan or Britain?
>It also turns out that a burgler is more likely to be shot by the owner of a home than he is to do time in the U.S.
Statistics, please?
Last I saw, an armed homeowner was more likely to injure a family member than a burglar (by about 10-1), and, as I saw first hand, it is a rare breed of human who can pull the trigger on another human being. ESPECIALLY if they are hunters. Is a TV worth someone’s life? Will you shoot them before they enter the house? What if they were drunk and harmless? Do you really think you could shoot someone for not answering your challenge? Most soldiers can’t do that in WARTIME conditions without a senior officer.
We were required to keep our weapons locked up. Where are yours? Do you have a trigger guard and will it defeat a serious attempt? (you really don’t want a pre-teen showing it off. And they do. Oh, I know. Not yours. That’s what the last parent I interviewed said.) How long does it take to find the gun, unlock the trigger guard, ready it to fire and fire? Have you tried this while hyperventillating?
The first time I tried to do a live run-through, where we had to stalk and throw down, I couldn’t have hit a car, let alone differentiated between a civilian and a suspect. Are you practicing? Have you told your children that if you scream, they should hit the deck? How are you preparing your family for an intruder?
Try this. Late at night, pretend to hear a noise after you’ve gone to bed. Pretend that the noise (you don’t know what it is) is moving around on the sleeping level of your home. Without alerting whatever is out there, i.e. no lights, no noise, find your weapon, load it, and prepare to shoot. Then throw open the door and find …. your child/a cat/a skunk. Then come back and tell me about being armed. Most cops would just call 911. Think you’re more prepared?
Converting an AK-47 from single-shot to true short burst auto is child’s play, but then, you knew that.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
“Converting an AK-47 from single-shot to true short burst auto is child’s play, but then, you knew that.”
I also know it is against the law to do so, if the weapon was not purchased as fully auto with the necessary licenses, it is a criminal offense for me to convert it.
“is a life worth a TV” no it’s not…..do I have the criminal’s word he will take the TV and leave, without harming me and family? Can I trust his word? Did said criminal know I was home, and made a decision on how to deal with me once inside my home……yes I’m sure residencial burgulars are willing to react to home owners be it fight or flight.
Bottom line, I’m and old man, single, live alone, anyone breaking, to gain entry into my home, knows full well. 1. he has no business in my home uninvited, 2. they are aware they are commenting an illigal act with the sole purpose to taking or destroying property belonging to another, or they intend to do harm to, or take the life of occupant of targeted resident. The Officer wish’s to implant the idea that for me to get my gun is the worst thing I could do, to wich I reply ..hiding under the covers and hoping he shows up in time is not an option.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
See, there you go, putting words in my mouth, but being unwilling to handle the hard questions.
If you really believe that burglars are more likely to kill you than rob you, shoot away. But don’t ask me and my brothers to stand there while you do.
All I want you to do (to the degree that I give a rip about you in particular) is to understand that you haven’t thought out ANY of the consequences thoroughly, not even to the degree that they would drive your actions.
So, you go around telling everyone about your commitment to the second amendment, but I bet you haven’t taken your house weapons to the range for sighting recently. And if you aren’t up to date on your training, what do you think you’ll be able to do?
Bah. You’re just another amateur. If you really understood guns and people, you’d be trained to within an inch of your life. As it is, you’re just a danger to yourself and your family.
Your implication that I’m part of Big Brother Gov’t is as ridiculous as it is insulting. Maybe you ought to learn that criticism isn’t only from those who oppose you.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Preach it, Moof!! I’d say more but I caught this on my way out the door to pick up Classmate X.
I’m a native Texan. I know how to shoot both a rifle and a pistol, and I can hit what I aim at. (NOT the broad side of a barn, either).
I don’t own a gun right now, I don’t particularly care to at this point in my life, BUT… I’m all for the second amendment, and you’ve stated our shared reasoning admirably.
P.S. I may not own a gun right now, but you can bet your booty that if someone tries getting in this house without our permission, I will be the one who gets to them first, and a cast iron skillet leaves quite the brain trauma.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:09 am
I’m not a trained killer in the truest since of the word. But… I am a survivor.
I will do what it takes to protect me, my children, and my home.
Whatever it takes.
What you describe on your first training session is what we recognize in Texas as “Buck Fever”. When you spy your target your heart beats so fast and your body trembles making it almost impossible to put your target into your sights.
But the folks that can overcome that feeling and steady themselves, those who can squeeze the trigger and make the kill, those are the overcomers… the folks who don’t ‘choke’.
That’s what training is for in any of the armed services. The training is to make sure that you don’t ‘choke’ and to ensure that you can follow through.
Training doesn’t lessen the adrenalin rush, or the sick feeling you may get in your stomach afterwards… it’s insurance that your target will drop in spite of it all.
Try this. Late at night, pretend to hear a noise after you’ve gone to bed. Pretend that the noise (you don’t know what it is) is moving around on the sleeping level of your home. Without alerting whatever is out there, i.e. no lights, no noise, find your weapon, load it, and prepare to shoot. Then throw open the door and find …. your child/a cat/a skunk. Then come back and tell me about being armed.
I’m a single mom.
There’s lots of noises that get investigated in the dark of night. You have to be brave to face these things alone. I have already determined, most of the time, what is going on before I even get out of bed. So I don’t have a gun in my hand when I go check things out.
I’m not scared and I don’t jump to conclusions.
The difference between me and the people who have horrible experiences and tragic consequences are because they react out of fear and I do not.
So sir… please don’t lump me in with the minority of people who don’t know how to handle themselves in a crisis. Much less confuse me with those who don’t know how to judge whether or not a crisis is at hand.
There’s always going to be some idiots in this world, but not everyone is an idiot.
later…
February 9th, 2006 at 1:18 am
In answer to your questions regarding my training, yes I shoot competiively in match’s at several area ranges, my rifles and handguns are sighted and repaired as needed. Being a guest on Moof’s blog, I will drop this discussion as it can only become inflamed.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:56 am
Wm, I wasn’t talking to you, so leave or stay, your choice.
TJ, training is wonderful. DOn’t mistake it for the real thing.
Moof, I’m glad to hear you’re not among the ignorant. Please remember that your comments are read by those who have no clue.
I’m gone. Keep your powder dry….
February 9th, 2006 at 9:20 am
TJ, William, Shelly - thanks so much for “holding down the fort” for me. I posted this challenge to Dr. Crippen, and then things came up, and I haven’t been able to get into here, although I’ve had an eye on what’s been going on.
I want to say that I’m a huge proponent of civil discussion between people who share differing views. In fact, I set up a blog especially for that purpose: Concordia Discors.
Among the things which I find less than enjoyable in such discussions however, are arrogance, rudeness, and personal attacks.
John … you were not answering me in your last comment, you were answering TJ. You don’t even know who you’re answering, and yet you have the temerity be dismissive of William.
From reading all of your comments, there’s quite a bit I’d like to say to you, although I’m not sure that this is the proper place, or time.
The attitude you’ve shown here is exactly why so many of us feel the need to look out for ourselves. You lump us all under the category of “amateurs” who jump and fire at the sound of a skunk rumbling through our garbage. I don’t know if you’re a city fellow or not, but you certainly sound like one.
I’m not going to defend myself from your widely sprayed assumptions which have indiscriminately hit everyone who posted comments here - letting us all know quite well exactly how discriminating you are, but I will say that people who lump others, none of whom they’ve met, under the inferred label of “too stupid to be trusted” … may be about due for a little introspection of their own.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Moof…
You’re always so darn diplomatic.
How do you do that?
;+ )
later…
February 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Ooops…
I forgot one thing…
87-year-old woman fatally shoots man in her home
later…
February 11th, 2006 at 8:34 am
TJ … that’s quite an article! Thanks for posting it! My husband tells me that right here locally, within 25 miles, within in the last several years, at least 3 homeowners have used guns to defend their homes - successfully. The homeowners were never charged, although in all three cases, the intruder was killed.
There was one homeowner charged for shooting and killing an intruder - up in Portland; as soon as you get out of the country, and into the city, attitudes change. :p
He also commented that “burglars” don’t generally get shot … people who break into your home when you’re there don’t usually come with the intent of taking your TV from you. None of the three successful defenses I mentioned above had been burglaries.
We’ve been burglarized - more than once. But always when we’re gone to camp, never when we’re here. And the police have been less than worthless in dealing with it. If someone were to “break into” here while I’m home, and he were a “local,” he would know quite well what he’s facing, and I would consider him extremely dangerous … if he were “not from here,” and his intentions really were more benign (steal a TV, for example) then I’m afraid he may not live long enough to learn what I know the locals are already aware of.
February 11th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Kudos on a well done post and conversation thread (IMHO of course).
February 11th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Thanks FuggerNutter … took a look at your blog - nice job! Would have left you a comment, but you have them turned off.
Thanks for visiting!
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:14 am
Moof,
Thanks :)
I saw that you were on Blogger but had Haloscan comments…. so I used that idea too and now have comments! (and I blog rolled you).
Thanks,
Fug
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Hey Fug!
Love your Blog-name, by the way … not to mention your sense of humor! ;-)
Thanks for the Blogroll! You’ll note that you’ve also been added to mine.
By the way, I’m not on blogspot.com, but rather on my own domain, blogsplot.net … and I’m using the comment functions that come with Word Press, which I have found to be more than adequate.
Now that I know you have comments enabled … I’ll be able to give you a “hard time” when I’m over on your blog, visiting you! >:-)
Thanks again! By the way - I like your blog … hugely!