Bill O’Reilly: Pinhead

Loading

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]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzcE0V5jVJY[/youtube]

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

O’Reilly’s a born and raised Long Islander, I think he’s pretty liberal and it sure sounds like he’s anti-gun; that makes him a pinhead at best. In the last few days, I have asked my anti-gun friends if they would define “assault weapon”, I then point out that my AR-15-/M-4 doesn’t near the range or stopping power that my .30-06 deer rifle has, or my 12 gauge for that matter, and the big difference is those other guns aren’t black. So far I haven’t got any answers that made sense.

Someone also needs to point out to O’Reilly how many times a year legal gun owners use their firearms to stop crimes in progress, either through direct action or merely displaying their firearm.

what an idiot

O’Reilly is a self aggrandizing populist idiot. This is exactly why I don’t watch him.

@Hard Right: I was going to post the same thing, but you beat me to it. I don’t even watch Fox News any more. Why should I pay to see O’Reilly, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, and all the other libs they’ve hired? If I wanted to hear the socialist viewpoint, I’d watch CBSNBCABCPBSCNN.

O’Reily certainly isn’t making the point very well, but the point is a valid 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.

Either there is some limitation on that guaranteed right, or there is no limitation on that guaranteed right.

The Howitzer is a reducto ad absurdum argument that demonstrates there obviously is some limitation. A private citizen has no guaranteed right to possess a Howitzer, a shoulder fired missile launcher, or a small thermonuclear weapon. Granting anyone such an unlimited license to bear arms was obviously not the Founding Fathers’ intention.

It therefore follows that rational limits can be defined. Doing so is not automatically unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment confers a basic right, not an unlimited license.

The most ignorant I’ve seen O’Reilly. Had to turn him off.

@Greg:

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.

Either there is some limitation on that guaranteed right, or there is no limitation on that guaranteed right.

The Howitzer is a reducto ad absurdum argument that demonstrates there obviously is some limitation.

So Greg, tell us were the colonial militiamen accustomed to privately procuring field artillery? I don’t know but it would seem that the Second Amendment was not drafted and ratified in a historical vacuum.

@CJ:, #8:

I located and watched the entire video. It certainly wasn’t one of O’Reilly’s more lucid presentations.

I don’t find anything in the quotations that contradict my own views about what the 2nd amendment means. It doesn’t represent a granting of unlimited license to every citizen. That’s really my only point.

@Greg:

This is a colonial period English howitzer.

http://www.americanrevolution.org/photos/saratoga.jpg

O’Reilly Self aggrandizing populist– agree. Liberal–not even close. He’s the closest FOX has to fair and balanced and it’s easy to see why he’s got the highest ratings on cable.

Bill got it very wrong. When asking for feedback on it, he’ll say he is still right. I like O’Reilly. Don’t agree with everything but I like what he does. His biggest drawback for me is he thinks additional laws actually stop wickedness. Sure some laws need to be changed but in Bill’s world, when something goes wrong, he wants a law to make sure it never happens again. No matter how that law may infringe on our rights as Americans.

@Mike O’Malley, #10:

It might be OK to have one of those parked on your front lawn, depending on state and local ordinances.

I’ve frequently seen fieldpieces of similar vintage in operation near Marion and Wabash Indiana at the annual Mississinewa 1812 reenactment. You can hear the booms for miles. They blow very impressive smoke rings.

All of the scenes in the video trailer were shot at the event, btw. This year marks the 200th anniversary of the Battle of the Mississinewa.

It’s a ridiculous argument. “Arms” has a very specific meaning versus “ordinance” which refers to howitzers, missle launchers, etc. The Constitution guaranties a right to bear ARMS not ORDINANCE – so the people who make this argument, including O’Reilly, don’t know what they’re talking about.

@Ben:

I understand your point, but I cannot agree about a distinct difference in ordnance and arms. Why? Because in order to do so, a determination must be made as to what constitutes each. Who makes that determination? How often?

Doing that “defines” the point that liberal/progressives can determine a certain arm is off limits. Do you think they would actually stop at what, say, the Army defines as ordnance? I don’t.

Technically, johngalt, SCOTUS has done that on many occasions already.. including in the 2008 DC vs Heller decision. You’ll note on page 2 of the syllabus (opinion written by Scalia) that they reference the 1939 opinion, United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, as well:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Scalia, writing for the majority court opinion, goes into further detail on pg 11

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

While there may be debates and arguments along the line about what may constitute a particular “arm”, AR-15s and ilk are common weapons that are not designed solely for military use, and cannot fall into the prohibitive category. But SCOTUS has historically confirmed there are limits, even in RKBA favorable rulings.

O’Really needs to watch this:

why “gun free zones” are the most dangerous place to be, and why the 2nd Amendment give you the right to carry a gun

@Richard Wheeler:

Liberal–not even close.

Actually, Rich, O’Reilly is best defined as a liberal.

Now, before you get your Irish panties in a wad, notice I didn’t say liberal/progressive. They are not one and the same. I used to say liberals when I talked about people like Obama and Pelosi. I soon learned, however, that the liberals you grew up with are not the same “liberals” of today. The “liberals” of today are heavily into Progressivism, which is nothing but a path to Statism (or Socialism, if you prefer).

Two minor points, CJ:
1) You, as a private citizen, can buy howitzers, tanks, APCs, etcetera. Sadly, all weapons must be deactivated to BATF standards. No working cannons, no machine guns without FedTax and permit.
I know of three British Saladins licensed and insured for road use in Texas. Lousy visibility, crappy fuel mileage, but fun to drive. There is even a man in Baltimore, I believe, who is restoring a German PzkwVI (Tiger I) tank to fully operating condition with a non-working main gun. If he succeeds, it will be one of only two in the world!
2) You can buy fully automatic weapons at gun shows, maybe not in all states. If there is a Class III dealer at the show with Class III weapons, you pay a deposit, they hold the weapon until you pay the tax and get your permit, then you pay the balance and pick it up. I had a chance to buy a CZ-49/SA-26 submachinegun in 7.62mm caliber at a gun show here in Georgia but someone else got it before I could get back from the ATM. Absolutely useless, but so much fun to shoot.

It’s about time some people on the right recognized O’Reilly for what he is. I stopped watching him in 2000.

BTW, CJ… stellar rant.

Mr. O’Rielly is an overbearing pompous arse. The fact that he has the highest ratings in cabledom just goes to show you that people are in fact, uh, uninformed. When he gets on his soap box about Catholic theology, oh my. I quit watching him because I could care less about his opinions and Fox is becoming less fair and balanced.

@MataHarley:

I think that you missed my point, Mata. It’s not that I don’t think that an opinion has been, hasn’t been, should be, or shouldn’t be, rendered as to a difference between ordnance and arms. It’s that I don’t believe we conservatives should allow the liberal/progressives to define that for us, whether in law or in rhetoric.

They basically did that with the assault weapons ban, relegating an entire class of firearms “off limits” to civilian use for no other reason than that it was the next logical step in their seeking a complete banning of firearms.

The question isn’t “Where do we draw the line?” The question is, “Do we let the gun-control crowd draw that line for us?”

Well, johngalt, the lib/progs… by way of Congress (when they have a majority) – do attempt to dictate that from time to time. But it doesn’t seem to last. The Assault Weapon Ban expired back in 2004. Despite twice trying to revive in under the 2007 and 2008 Dem majority Congress, the attempts have never made it out of committee. Unfortunately, the States have picked up that battle on their own. My own exit from California was driven by their implementation of an “assault weapon ban” (aka SB-23) that we, as a grassroots movement attempted to overturn by getting a repeal referendum on the ballot. I rented a booth at the guns shows, canvasing about five different counties, and collected a ton of signatures on petitions. Others did the same. Without formal organization, and just emails and help from some of the local talk radio hosts to give the movement some press, we can up shy of getting it on the ballot by a little over 10K signatures. So I packed my bags, and put California in my rear view mirror. Figured it was only going downhill from there, and it certainly has… in all aspects.

Personally, I don’t mind the lip service from the left, whining about weapons, mag capacity. 1st Amendment and all that jazz. And it’s not like it’s a surprising mentality. Been that way for awhile. I do mind it when I see conservatives fall into that trap. But ultimately it all depends on keeping enough RKBA conscious representation in Congress. Otherwise the gun-control crowd lobby will have the power to, again, draw that line.

what do you expect from a douche bag….

@Sid:

Mr. O’Rielly is an overbearing pompous arse. The fact that he has the highest ratings in cabledom just goes to show you that people are in fact, uh, uninformed.

Would that suggest to you instead that many people have poor taste and are therefore attracted to overbearing pompous arses?

When he gets on his soap box about Catholic theology, oh my

Catholic theology is in your view more objectionable than Rev. James Cone’s Black Liberation theology?

@Mike O’Malley:
Neh, neh I’m just saying there is not much on TV to watch anymore except the Walking Dead and DISH isn’t carrying AMC anymore, but I digress, Mr. O’Rielly tends to project that his opinion is the only opinion that matters. His CINO stance on Church doctrine proves that he is just a pompous overblown egomaniac that likes to pontificate. When Beck was on Fox at 4:00 pm he was closing in on O’Rielly and his honey of a time slot.

@Greg: You said:

The Howitzer is a reducto ad absurdum argument that demonstrates there obviously is some limitation. A private citizen has no guaranteed right to possess a Howitzer, a shoulder fired missile launcher, or a small thermonuclear weapon. Granting anyone such an unlimited license to bear arms was obviously not the Founding Fathers’ intention.

You blithely go from a cannon to a missile launcher to a nuclear weapon. I’ve got to hand it to you, when you make an ass out of yourself, you do it well. The only difference between you and O’Reilly on this point is that he made an ass out of himself in front of millions of Americans.

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.

Tell me, where does that limit me to a ‘basic‘ right as opposed to anything else?

CJ: I don’t watch O’Reilly that much anymore, he just is too wishy washy. One night he seems oh so conservative, then the next night he is kissing Obie’s butt and carrying his water.

Good OP.

@anticsrocks:

The American right to bear arms emerged within a real world historical context? Would one not expect that right to be understood within that context? For example colonialist used small arms and knives for defense. When they assembled as a militia they brought those weapons with them if need be. During the French an Indian War the colonial militia used their personal small arms and knives when engaging the enemy. I’m confident Colonial governors were always pleased to have manpower resources in depth if needed to keep the tomahawks at bay. And to the extent that it was a BYO party the Colonial administration was spared the expense of maintaining an expensive armory. However, I’d doubt any colonial governor would give little concern to news of private colonial citizens acquiring field artillery? For what? Insurrection and siege warfare?

Why on earth aren’t these arguments about gun-control informed with real historical perspective?

@Mike O’Malley:@Greg: As usual, you’ve got it wrong, Greggie.

It IS legal to own cannons.

From the BATF website on their FAQ page:

Q: Are muzzleloading cannons classified as destructive devices? Generally, no. Muzzleloading cannons not capable of firing fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 and replicas thereof are antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the GCA or the NFA. [26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11] – Source

@anticsrocks, #28:

You blithely go from a cannon to a missile launcher to a nuclear weapon.

The entire point of a reducto ad absurdumargument is to invalidate an initial premise by showing that it logically leads to an absurd conclusion. Some assert that the 2nd Amendment is intended to guarantee a citizen the right to bear arms without limit or qualification. Obviously that interpretation is incorrect, because it leads to the absurd conclusion that private ownership of weapons of mass destruction is protected by the Constitution.

#30:

It IS legal to own cannons.

I didn’t say it wasn’t. As was noted in #13, It might be OK to have one of those parked on your front lawn, depending on state and local ordinances. I’ve talked to guys who own them and haul them around to reenactment events. Want one? Try this website.

I should probably support my home state armorer. Here’s a source in South Bend, Indiana.

I use to enjoy Bill, then sometime about a year ago something changed. He started, or perhaps I just noticed, he started becoming less focused, less able to make his point. That was when I stopped watching.

I didn’t bother to watch the clip, I don’t think I need to, anyone that wants to tell me I can’t have a boat load of ammo or guns can just shove it. This is the United States of America, we can have as many guns, ammo, cars, tv’s, computers any thing we want and if someone doesn’t like it that’s just too bad, they don’t have the right to tell me that 6k rounds is too much or 6 tvs are too many. It’s just a shame we can’t have a good government.

The Second Amendment does not “give” anyone the right to self protection.

Clearly if we are to accept reducto ad absurdum arguments as valid, then they must be valid in other arguments. Greg and his fellow Democrats (and gun- grabbers) continually use reducto ad absurdum in order to whittle down our Constitutional rights. (As did Bush and those who gave us the Patriot Act). That is why they want everyone to believe that the Constitution is a “living document,” so that they can continue to erode and limit our rights, until we only have those rights their party of eventual tyranny will allow us. Using the logic of reducto ad absurdum, continuing to elect Democrats will undoubtedly, eventually lead to the loss of all our rights. It’s what they do. As with their “Living Document,” judicial activism, rewriting the very meaning of the Constitution results in changing it into something the founders would find reprehensible.

This conclusively proves that the agenda of Greg and his Democratic party is to destroy the Constitutionally guaranteed Republic and replace it via reducto ad absurdum with a Democracy (which the Founding Fathers universally abhorred and rejected, because democracies always devolve into tyranny). That they will continue to misuse our very Constitution and Bill of Rights to destroy it and this nation, “Fundamentally transforming it” from within. Because those like Greg hate America, (why else would they desire to destroy this nation, pervert it’s law of the land and take away it’s Constitutional recognized rights of the people?), reducto ad absurdum forces us to conclude that they must be numbered among those ‘enemies of the state’ that each and every military and government office holder has sworn to defend this nation from:

I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

If we then must follow the logic of reducto ad absurdum arguments, then Greg and his Democrat ideologues by using reducto ad absurdum as a means to a treasonous goal (i.e. overthrow of the government from within,) they are via reducto ad absurdum domestic enemies of the state and must dealt with appropriately.

Yet one might also consider this entire post reducto ad absurdum. N’est–ce pas?

@Ditto:

(As did Bush and those who gave us the Patriot Act).

That rif plays well with left and right but it isn’t true. The substance of Patriot Act, almost all of the Act has passed Constitutional muster and is consistent with the Constitutional practice such of such wartime Presidents as George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

@Rides A Pale Horse:

You are correct. The 2nd Amendment underwrites the declarations Right to Life.

1%>1%>1%>1%>1%> Mayor Bloomberg aptly demonstrated for us why that Second Amendment is necessary. It protects one’s life from the political whim of the state whose parties might just choose not to respond to instants of criminal behavior so as to make a political point.

All you folks can continue to waste your time commenting on this blog site. Me. I’m going to the bank for some cash then I’m going to go git me a howitzer, some grenades, and a couple of mortars before the gubermint restricts my right to buy them. Bill, your the greatest….err actually Bill you are a real maroon.

Mittens signed an “assault weapons ban” in MA when he was governor here. On the GOAL (Gun Owners Action League) they have the MA definitions of what constitutes an assault weapon:
http://goal.org/masslawpages/awfacts.html

@38 Son of Tazz, I thought that was the case too, until I recently heard the President of GOAL on Wilkow’s radio show (XM radio). The bill he signed prevented a lot of other restrictions from taking place (working from memory on coffee cup #1), I think it also sun-setted some other restrictions. Yeah, there are still some banned guns there, and that wasn’t going to do anything but get worse; the bill Romney signed was actually good for gun owners. Not having a dog in that hunt, and never itending to return to New England for any reason, I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the situation up there; but I was glad to hear the guy step up and clarify what a caller had claimed (basicallly the same thing you just said).
BTW, Roney isn’t my first choice either, but the more I learn about him, the less unhappy I get about what I view as the only choice we have in the upcoming election.

The left is so damned looney on this. My understanding is that the framers had two amendments offered regarding arms, one from VA seeking assurances on the states’ right to maintain militias, one from MA (of all places) seeking assurance of the individual citizens’ right to bear arms. For some reason, maybe to keep the list at ten like the commandments etc. the two were combined so that each was satisfied. Two groups, two rights.

The framers had just lived through a war on their own soil, they knew full well that the arms of a solider were decisively better than the hunting weapons of a civilian. They’d seen with their own eyes what a difference a bayonet or sword made in the days of the musket, these were the “assault” weapons of the day. . . and WERE NOT excluded from the right of the individual to bear arms.

Any lib who thinks the 2nd only relates to “muskets” and “hunting rifles” must by force of logic accept that the 1st only applies to quill pens, manual presses and voices not amplified or transmitted electronically.

Let’s imprison everyone who walks into a bank or store since a small fraction of those people rob them. There is a reason we are a nation of written laws, (theoretically at least) not of the opinions of “reasonable” (what ever that is) men like Greg and Bloomburg.

It’s the residual effects of all those years he spent at ABC News.

Now, he is as dumb as Brian Ross.

@John Cooper: Ditto that!!!

Come next year it will be fifty years ago that I began a five year stint at the Aurora Police Department. At that time it was a bedroom city for Denver and fraught with family fights and disturbances. Where the theater in the news is now located was a rural field as far as I recall. When I left it had a 60,000 population. The night shift on one occasion had only three one-man patrols, one each north and south of E. Colfax and a sergeant running cover. At the time the Chief (Spencer Garrett) controlled a very limited base of persons who were allowed to have a concealed weapons permits to carry within the city. Adams County (north of Colfax) and Arapahoe (south of Colfax) each issued permits to carry in their respective Counties. So, in effect, carrying in and around Aurora and vicinity would require up to three CCW permits.
It was a strange place then and probably is even stranger now. Needless to say I never felt the urge to go back even though I left some very close comrades there.
CJ; I am of the opinion that if every citizen who was sober and not a user of drugs carried a firearm this lunatic would not have existed in the first place. That being said, your statement, “The bullet in an AK47 is smaller than a 9mm round”, is only a fact of diameter. It is much larger otherwise and more lethal by far– I would take a round from a 9mm pea-shooter well before a round form an AK. But I digress; The article is well written and I agree 100%. “Fry” this clown and lets move forward.
MANDATORY CARRY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL RESPONSIBLE ADULTS!
Almost forgot, O’Rielly fell on his head several years ago..

The fact that so many here dislike O’Reilly actually lends credence to the Fox “fair and balanced” mantra. Who knew?

@MataHarley:

I do mind it when I see conservatives fall into that trap.

Which kinda follows my point to Ben from above. Anyone, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc. that value our freedoms and liberties, especially as it relates to the 2nd Amendment, should not give the liberal/progressives an inch of play on this issue, especially as it relates to defining what kind of firearms we citizens should be “allowed” to have.

That’s why I wouldn’t accept Greg’s asinine reducto ad absurdum argument, as it leads down the road to allowing the opposition to the 2nd Amendment to define the limitations of that freedom.

@Richard Wheeler:

I look at O’Reilly the same as I look at you, Rich. A poor misguided soul who still believes that the Democratic Party is the party of liberalism, particularly the liberalism they grew up with in the 50’s and 60’s.

J.G. If by Liberal you mean someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,someone who cares about the welfare of the people,their health,their housing,their schools,their jobs,their civil rights,their civil liberties. If that’s what you mean, then I ‘m proud to call myself a Liberal.
JFK—- Concur

Screw you Bill.

@Richard Wheeler:

If by Liberal you mean someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,someone who cares about the welfare of the people,their health,their housing,their schools,their jobs,their civil rights,their civil liberties.

If you think conservatives are any different than that, then you are fooling yourself.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said before;

Conservatism isn’t the evil here, Rich. Neither is liberalism. The evil is the direction those two camps are being pulled by the overseers of the GOP and Democratic Party by the corrupt people in charge of them, who, by the way, just happen to be in charge of our country right now.

@johngalt, #45:

That’s why I wouldn’t accept Greg’s asinine reducto ad absurdum argument, as it leads down the road to allowing the opposition to the 2nd Amendment to define the limitations of that freedom.

If those who like to think of themselves as the sole supporters of the Constitution had any sense, they would give serious thought to defining what rational limits should apply to the 2nd Amendment themselves. 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. That proposition is so easy to discredit that putting it forward essentially deprives gun rights advocates of having any meaningful input at all.

@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.

@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.