Gun Control Idiocy From Those Wacky Folks Over at ...Fox News

Here, I thought I had flown into Ohio, turns out, I overshot Ohio and ended up on the Bizarro planet. A little jet lagged and behind in my blogdasarian duties, I brought dinner back to the hotel and passed on an HBO movie where absolutely no one in the cast wore any clothes (okay, they were animated birds!), after having been assailed by a promo for Real Time with Bill Maher. (The primary problem being that Real Time isn't Real Funny!) Notice how many shows on HBO tout themselves as "Real"? Real Time, Real Sports, Real Sex. Reminds me of the lady who said, "Honey, if you have to hang a sign around your neck saying you is, then you ain't!" But, I digress...

So I watched a little bit of Special Report with Bret Baier, without Bret Baier. Charles Krauthammer was on the panel, so I thought it might not be too bad. I couldn't tell you of anything spectacular ventured on the program until this blonde, whom I surmise to be A. J. Stoddard, said something spectacularly ill informed.

Speaking of the Colorado theater shooting, she said of the ammunition he purchased, and I speak from memory, that "none of this ammunition is used for self defense."

Fancy that! I have a Glock .40 that I have personally used for self defense, which uses, wait for it, .40 cal ammunition. He carried an 870 Remington shotgun, which is an excellent home defense weapon, and an AR-15, chambered in .223. Some of you might be old enough to remember the LA riots, where Korean shopkeepers climbed up to the roofs of their shops, armed with guns very similar to the AR-15, to defend their property against looters and arsonists. I don't know if they ever had to fire a single shot, but their presence served as a deterrent.

Let's recap: All three varieties of ammunition have been used or could certainly be used for self defense. If you want to argue about the quantities of ammunition he ordered, that's another story. But, if you don't know what you're talking about, please educate yourself before you enter the adult world of discussions on firearms laws and regulations.

Which brings us to Bill O'Reilly. He hit the trifecta tonight. I almost never watch Mr. O, but after yet another lap of the channels available, I saw he was going to have Bernard Goldberg on, so I thought, Aha! Another bright spot.

So I turned it on in the background and looked up as Bill was launching into a rant. First, he made some crack about buying bazookas without the Federal government knowing about it*. This, of course, is patently absurd, particularly if you are speaking of a functional bazooka with ammunition. These are highly regulated devises that are not commonly available to civilians.

I thought it was just part of his "Shtick", that he was saying something so hyperbolic for comic effect. He followed that up with a statement that one can buy machine guns without the feds knowing about it. He generated quite a bit of faux outrage at this! Unfortunately for Bill, it isn't true. The only people who can purchase machine guns are those who have Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL).

These weapons are tightly regulated and FFLs are not easy, or inexpensive to obtain. I cannot explain why, buy Mr. O'Reilly was getting quite incensed over something that simply is not true.

He compounded the idiocy with a parting remark about how it is "irresponsible to take a six year old to a midnight showing of a movie to be killed", as if it were somehow responsible to take a six year old to a movie matinee to be killed.

Hindsight is 20/20 Bill. Except for one deranged person, taking a six year old to the movies is hardly the act of an irresponsible parent. Bad judgment? Maybe. I wouldn't have done it, but like your rhetoric about bazookas and machine guns, your use of the word "irresponsible" was, well, irresponsible.

* I heard the quote a second time. It was more like "terrorists can buy bazookas without the FBI knowiung about it. Sheesh!