25 Jul

Bill O’Reilly: Pinhead

                                       

It’s been nearly a week since the deadly shootings in Colorado and the choruses of gun control are more catchy and widespread than ever. Even so-called lovers of the Second Amendment are demanding crack downs.

Bill O’Reilly, to use his words, is a pinhead. Literally every point he made in this interview (re: interrogation) of Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz was dead wrong.

The gunman didn’t purchase 60,000 rounds of ammunition, he had 6,000. But, the number doesn’t really matter. He could have had 6,000,000 rounds of ammunition and that won’t change the laws of physics and gravity that restrict how much of that ammo he can carry. In the Army, we have billions of rounds of ammunition but we generally only carry approximately 210 rounds (a basic load) on us because that’s all we have room for.

I’d like Mr. O’Reallyignorant to cite even one example of who is purchasing mortars and “howitzers.” In case you have no idea what a Howitzer is, this is what The Factor’s host is saying that people can purchase basically willy-nilly:

I don’t know about you, but these are a staple in every Texas driveway. Of course, maybe I’m being too overly dramatic and O’Reilly was really talking about THESE Howitzers.

Yeah, that’s more like it. At least these you could tow with your Dodge Ram pickup truck (with HEMI!).

Dumbo then goes on to ramble and bully the Congressman with his extreme wit(lessness) about automatic and semi-automatic guns. He even deigns to ask the Chaffetz if he’s ever been to a gun show where these things can be purchased on the open market without any paperwork what-so-ever. I don’t know where Bill goes to gunshows, but when I purchase guns at gun shows (my favorite place to get the best deals), I ALWAYS have to fill out the FBI background form that includes the weapon I’m purchasing and the serial number. And NO ONE sells automatic weapons there. You can’t get them at gun shows.

I’m not going to piecemeal every ignorant comment by O’ReallyStupid. Each time he opened his mouth he spouts idiocy in this clip.

Bill would fit in well with the conspiracy nuts, though. I’ve read everything from stories about James Holmes being a puppet of the CIA to an Obama lapdog using a false flag operation to further gun control agendas. Then there’s this little gem of a video.

YouTube Preview Image

The user that uploaded the video uses cleverly edited video in an attempt to deceive the audience into thinking that the entire length of the footage is dedicated to the Colorado shooting. Notice at the :40 second mark that the footage is edited so that the viewer can’t see the footer of the interview that identifies the station and individual being interviewed.

1. O’Reilly implies all AK’s are heavy weapons and fully automatic. Wrong. The bullet in an AK47 is smaller than a 9mm round.

2. He says ANYONE can just go out and buy any w’big weapon’ like machine guns and grenades. He obviously doesn’t even know what a machine gun is. Machine guns are virtually impossible to buy unless you’re a licensed collector.

3. He feels that buying 60k rounds should put you under FBI surveillance, and should be reported by dealers. That buying any ‘large’ amount should be reported (what is large?). So, by his thinking I should be reported because I deign to purchase cases if ammo for both personal use, competition shooting, and target practice. To get around this if it were to be enforced, consumers would just need to buy ammunition from a myriad of sources at levels not deemed “excessive” by Bill’s brown shirts.

O’Reilly lost me. But, Congressman Chaffetz has gained a fan.

I’ve heard over the past few days from the liberal gun grabbers our founding fathers never envisioned the kinds of weapons we have today. They never thought that “military-style” weapons would be available to normal citizens. Naturally, this ignores the fact that the citizens of the early 18th and 19th centuries also had military-style weapons which enabled them to secure our independence from a tyrannical government. So, what did the founding fathers truly envision with regard to the Second Amendment?

I frequently post quotes from the Federalist Papers from our Founding Fathers. These are perhaps the most reliable source for gaining insight into the frame of mind back then. I’d like to share some with you here.

George Mason:
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…

Thomas Jefferson:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. Letter to Peter Carr, 1785.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Letter to George Washington.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. In the draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Benjamin Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

James Madison:
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Federalist Papers No. 46

John Adams:
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Roger Sherman:
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. 1790, during House consideration of a militia bill.

Noah Webster:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Not a Founding Father, but:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” –Cesare Beccaria

This entry was posted in Media and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, July 25th, 2012 at 10:53 am
| 1,458 views

72 Responses to Bill O’Reilly: Pinhead

  1. johngalt says: 51

    @Greg:

    they would give serious thought to defining what rational limits should apply to the 2nd Amendment

    And we do, Greg. We just don’t accept that the gun-control crowd should be the sole defining entity of what we can, or cannot, possess.

    Clearly the proposition that no limits at all apply doesn’t pass muster, because a wide variety of modern arms exist that the average private citizen simply has no business possessing.

    Clearly, you have identified yourself as someone who should be allowed to define what others should, or should not have. That alone makes me at least wary, if not downright suspicious, of not only the limits you would apply, but the reasoning behind it.

    And if that makes you think that I am the type of person who believes there should be no limits, then whatever. Practical gun owners will see no need to own a .50 caliber Barrett, for instance, for a variety of reasons. But they also won’t impose the limits they impose on themselves, on others, as others may have a valid reason for doing so. To suggest that you know better than someone else, what limitations they should have, makes you nothing more than a petty tyrant.

    ReplyReply
  2. John Cooper says: 52

    @Richard Wheeler:

    If by Liberal you mean someone who welcomes,someone who cares about the welfare of the people,their health,their housing,their schools,their jobs,their civil rights,their civil liberties.

    You have no idea how the rest of the world sees you. Let me help:

    A liberal is someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions – That’s because liberals have no fundamental principles to guide them. To liberals, any idea is just as good as any other idea – they’re amoral, – unwilling or unable to discriminate between ideas that are good for civilization and ideas that are bad for civilization. Freedom and slavery are just two arbitrary choices, equally valid. Observe that in Chicago, the Mayor has told a Christian businessman that he is not welcome in “his” city because the businessman doesn’t believe in homosexual marriage. At the same time, he welcomes with open arms a Muslim businessman whose religion stones homosexuals to death and sexually mutilates their young females. It’s not possible for a sane person to hold two diametrically opposed ideas in his mind at the same time and believe them both, but for some reason that ability seems to be the hallmark of the modern liberal.
    someone who cares about the welfare of the people – Translation: We are better than you and want to proscribe every aspect of your life. We demand it.
    Liberals care about people’s health – by destroying the best health care system the world has ever seen. Socialized medicine has never worked anywhere it’s been tried, but that doesn’t stop liberals from forcing it upon us. The only conclusion a rational person can come to is that liberals want to see people suffer and die.
    Liberals care about housing – by forcing banks to lend to lend to people who couldn’t afford to make the mortgage payments – the end result of which was the people lost their housing and the economy of the entire country was ruined. Thanks Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. Oh, but I forgot, “They meant well!”…
    Liberals care about their schools – After fifty years of liberals being in charge of the schools, our children can barely read and write, can’t do basic math, know nothing of science, have no marketable skills…but by God they have their self-esteem! Our schools are failing and our society is crumbling because you libs have been cramming “do what you feel like / there’s no such thing as right and wrong” into the minds of our children rather than giving them the knowledge necessary to survive on earth. Mankind survives by his mind, but liberals are anti-mind, which therefore means anti-life.
    Liberals care about jobs – Could you really type that with a straight face? As is always the case with liberals’ utopian ideals, the results of their high-minded plans never seem to work out in the real world, do they? Does that cause liberals to reassess their premises? Hell no! The ultimate liberal jobs program is Arbeit Macht Frei.
    Liberals care about civil rights – Unless, of course, you happen to be a Christian business owner who believes a marriage should be between one man and one woman. ..or a property owner who believes he has the right to use and dispose of his property as he sees fit.
    Liberals care about civil liberties – which is why they absolutely adore the TSA, the PATRIOT act, and drones flying over farmers’ fields looking for EPA violations.

    Let me clear it up for you: Liberals only want one thing: POWER OVER OTHERS. Look in the mirror.

    ReplyReply
  3. johngalt says: 53

    @John Cooper:

    Not liberals, John, but liberal/progressives. Rich is under the delusion that the Democratic party is full of innocent liberals and not being led around by liberal/progressives who would enslave us.

    ReplyReply
  4. Richard Wheeler says: 54

    John Galt Actually that screed by John Cooper confirms why I am a Liberal in the tradition of J.F.K and R.F.K. To me self evident beneath that bombardment.

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  5. Hard Right says: 55

    JFK was corrupt as was RFK. They abused their power and they violated the Constitution. It does not surprise me that you say you are of the same mold.

    ReplyReply
  6. John Cooper says: 56

    @johngalt:

    Rich is under the delusion that the Democratic party is full of innocent liberals

    You’re correct that it’s a delusion that liberals are innocent. They have blood on their hands and I wince every time someone like Mitt Romney says “They mean well”. They don’t. They’re motivated by death, as the actual John Galt explained in great detail. Oh, I see I posted that already here.

    “Destruction is the only end that the mystics’ creed has ever achieved, as it is the only end that you see them achieving today, and if the ravages wrought by their acts have not made them question their doctrines, if they profess to be moved by love, yet are not deterred by piles of human corpses, it is because the truth about their souls is worse than the obscene excuse you have allowed them, the excuse that the end justifies the means and that the horrors they practice are means to nobler ends. The truth is that those horrors are their ends.”

    ReplyReply
  7. Richard Wheeler says: 57

    H.R. cks in can retire 05 be far behind? More confirmation
    Coop says I’m ” motivated by death” — Put down your guns and that bottle of hair dye–breathe deeply.

    ReplyReply
  8. Hard Right says: 58

    Here you go rich
    http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/jfk/section8.rhtml
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/16/opinion/op-sanchez16

    JFK and co. also stole the election thru vote fraud. That’s some hero you have there.

    ReplyReply
  9. John Cooper says: 59

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Coop says I’m ” motivated by death”

    You provide a perfect example of the liberal problem. Some define insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When I confront you with the results of socialism wherever and wherever it’s been tried, you accuse ME of insanity, though. Psychological projection is another hallmark of modern liberalism.

    To your kind, national health care as in the rest of the world is “caring for people”, regardless of the lack of care and early deaths anywhere that socialist medicine has been tried. No matter, as long as you can feel good about yourself and remain in charge. Let’s try it again…

    To your kind, the hundreds of thousands of deaths by socialism in the twentieth century are no reason not to try the same philosophy here in America. “We just need better leaders”, like Obama, of course…

    I’m sorry, but there’s no morally HONEST excuse to embrace socialism any more.

    ReplyReply
  10. johngalt says: 60

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Rich, you apparently missed the commentary after the headings written in by John. I know you are screwed in the head, but I doubt that you agree with what John wrote.

    You are a liberal, Rich. There is no denying that. I’m sure that you are also a nice guy, too. In my area of the country, we had a nice guy liberal elected to Congress in the 2006 elections. Turns out he wasn’t so nice, as he voted lockstep with Pelosi. A friend of mine, who has been a lifelong Democrat, kept telling me how honest and nice this guy was. Before 2010 he was right along side the majority of residents in my district calling for the guy to be thrown out on his butt.

    What’s the point of that? That even a guy who believes as you profess to do is led around by his nose by the far left liberal/progressive wing of the Democratic Party. I don’t think your evil, Rich. I don’t even think you are that bad of a guy. What I do think is that you haven’t opened your eyes to who is actually running the Democratic party.

    ReplyReply
  11. Blake says: 61

    Everytime one of these nutjobs goes off like this, I have to wince at the moronic comments of the Left, as they will do and say anything to gain a foothold on the Second Amendment, or indeed any amendment, so they can proceed in dismantling the Constitution-
    The reality is that the Second Amendment is to the point, in that ….”the right to keep and bear arms shall nor be infringed.” Notice the period after that- it does not add, “except in states, counties, or municipalities that wish to do so.” No, it ends the sentence just where the founders wanted it to.
    And by that logic, everyone should be allowed to carry a pistol if they so wished- it is only the unhinged nutjobs, and possibly some liberal “Diehard” buffs that would be a problem, and with everyone having a gun, the whackjobs would be weeded out, all without the troubling activism of judges nowadays.
    Pity- I remember when the phrase “Hanging Judge” was one of the highest praises you could give a judge- no longer- now wishy- washy seems to rule the bench.
    This is a good argument for the Second Amendment- if the law does not protect the weak, well, Samuel Colt will.

    ReplyReply
  12. John Cooper says: 62

    At least their is some good news regarding liberals. They’ve become The Instruments of their Own Destruction:

    Liberals in this country have brought about their own demise – they just don’t realize it yet.

    Ever since the Sexual Revolution, liberals have been on a path of species self-destruction. Through their “enlightened” policies over the past 40 – 50 years, they have quite literally managed to socially engineer themselves into obscurity.

    In another 20 years it is quite possible that Liberals will no longer be able to drive the national conversation, because they will have ceased to be relevant. They will have become just another minority; they are already well on their way down that path.

    Over the past 40+ years, the cult of liberalism has shunned traditional religion in favor of their own Holy Trinity – Free Love, Reproductive Rights, and the crown jewel of them all, Abortion. Ironically, they don’t realize that by their very actions they have become just one more species that is driving itself to extinction.

    As an example, the author compares the Clinton “family” (e.g. Chelsea) to the Romney family – all 28 of them.

    ReplyReply
  13. johngalt there is no way they can take away the right to bear arms,
    because with all the illegals from 150 different countries sneaking in this UNITED STATES, PLUS THE CRIMINALS ALREADY IN THIS COUNTRY, PLUS ALL THE DRUG DEALER HELPING THOSE CRIMINALS,
    WHAT IS LEFT IS GOOD CITIZENS WHO NEED THEIR WEAPONS MORE THAN EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND YES THERE IS A MILLICIA WATCHING WHAT IS DEVELOPING
    AND THEY ARE ON GUARD FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE,
    WHICH MEAN WHOEVER HAS IN MIND TO TAKE AWAY THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN,
    THE PATRIOTS ARE WATCHING YOU.
    and if OBAMA want to hide behind the UN
    to have his ban pass UNDER ANY PRETENSE , it won’t be pass in the UNITED STATES,
    WHICH WILL ANNUL ANYTHING CONCERNING THAT RIGHT.

    ReplyReply
  14. Richard Wheeler says: 64

    Coop I go to Mormon functions all the time. They generally have large to very large families and include the kids in just about everything. The young men are knocking on my door regularly and I have at least 3 Book Of Mormons. They’d love to outnumber Evangelicals and Catholics as well as the dreaded Liberals

    ReplyReply
  15. John Cooper
    that was very interesting, thank you for the link
    bye

    ReplyReply
  16. another vet says: 66

    @John Cooper: It’s called survival of the fittest.

    ReplyReply
  17. Hankster says: 67

    Bill O’Reilly…. Some days… COOL…. other days, a FOOL…. my take.. yours may vary.

    ReplyReply
  18. Hankster says: 68

    By the way Mr. O’Reilly…. the most COMPARABLE commercial round…BALLISTICS wise…. to the AK??

    the 100+ yr old 30-30 Winchester round…. want to ban THOSE next??? DOH!!

    ReplyReply
  19. anticsrocks says: 69

    @Richard Wheeler: I don’t think that was his point, Rich

    ReplyReply
  20. anticsrocks says: 70

    @John Cooper: Interesting and thought provoking point JC, thanks for posting it.

    ReplyReply
  21. joe doakes says: 71

    I get the “military arms are limited to muskets common at the time of the Constitution” argument all the time.

    No, the Founding Fathers thought ordinary people should own the most current, up-to-date military arms available to guard against tyranny. Yes, private individuals DID own cannon in those days (like Soloman Simson, who donated them to the Revolutionary Army to fight the British).
    .

    ReplyReply
  22. Hank Rockwell Jr says: 72

    Bill O’Reilly is today’s Ted Baxter of the news.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>