O'Reilly on assault weapons again (vanity)

Fox / O'Reilly Factor | 01/01/2004 | Bill O'Reilly

[Sender]

O'Reilly: "I believe in the Second Amendment, that includes rifles and handguns, so that people can protect their families..."

"...the vast majority of Americans agree on this (renewing the assault weapon ban)..."

"...when you get into the assault weapons, the big guns, you're out on the fringe."

[PhilipFreneau]

>> His gun rant, his anti-lawyer tirades and his border protection using American military (totally illegal and with good reason).

Just a minor point, but I thought one of the duties of government was to protect us from invasion. Does not "border protection" fall under "protecting us from invasion". Article IV, Sect 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." Admittedly, that task belongs to the militia in a constitutional sense; but since the federal government essentially disbanded the civilian militia in favor of the National Guard (a branch of the U.S. Army), the only way it can enforce Article IV, Sect 4 is by using the Army.

[FreedomPoster]

Moreso than most TV journalists. But not on this issue.

[wgeorge2001]

He's wrong on this one. I guess this is what happens when you like to straddle the fence the middle.
Perhaps he does not realize that changing the constitutional rights of all American's makes the law abiding citizens subject to the abuse of the foolish liberal left who are destroying this great country.

[Oztrich Boy]

When our military can invade and conquer a foreign country the size of California in a matter of weeks, I think the days of any weapon you might harbor in your home being of any use to protect yourself against our government our long gone

Taking the territory is the easy part. Holding it against an active resistenace is the problem.

It takes numerical superiority of at least 10 to 1 to quell an insurgency. If the Ba'athists had any real active support in Iraqi now, the situation would be totally different.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Keep in mind anyone, as long as they meet requirements, can purchase 20mm weapons.

---

Of course, the ammo is a little tough to find.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Again, if you are going to hold presidential assassins out as examples of why the individual citizens' right to bear arms needs to be preserved, you're going to lose the argument all day long.

---

I think that we who fully support the 2nd amendment will do fine without taking strategic advice from those who do not.

[sargon]

O'Reilly is by no means a conservative or libertarian.

Thus, of course, he frequently exhibits his ignorance on the Second Amendment...

[Charles Martel]

I am not a student of the assault weapons ban legislation.

That's a common problem. Many people who know nothing about the actual law and/or the legislation proposed to replace and expand it are pontificating on the subject, including, sadly, "television personalities". When Rosie O'Donnell spouts off, that's bad enough - but when someone like O'Reilly does the same, it's twice as bad. At least Rosie isn't masquerading as a "journalist".

But I am sympathetic to the idea that any weapons which can cause more harm when used to attack but at the same time add no benefit to personal defense above a standard gun would be banned...

Look up the FBI crime reports which break down crimes by type of weapon used. You'll find that "assault weapons" are way down low in the single-digit percentile. By far, the criminal's choice is the inexpensive handgun. Obviously, "standard guns" cause more harm, so it should be clear that banning military-pattern semi-automatic firearms was never about reducing crime.

[showme_the_Glory]

He's a professional entertainer. He flip flops back and forth in order to attract the largest number of viewer/listener/reader. He is one of the biggest spinners out there.

[Major_Risktaker]

Bentley Hunaudières

I always liked this C-MAG 100 MP5 also.

[TERMINATTOR]

Well said! The Second Amendment is about arms parity between the people (Militia), and their government.

Neighborhood nuclear superiority now!

Molon Labe!

[Sloth]

...the constitution can be amended which is even more of a reason why you need common sense and practicality behind your arguments, not just following the words already in it. It was created as a living document and thankfully so.

Is this anti-Constitution view welcome on FR?

[Destructor]

O'Reilly is the "lite beer" of conservatism. The "diet Coke" of conservatism. The "I can't believe it's not butter" of conservatism!

[dljordan]

He's a Northeastern big-city conservative. Democrat Lite.

[El Gato]

When our military can invade and conquer a foreign country the size of California in a matter of weeks, I think the days of any weapon you might harbor in your home being of any use to protect yourself against our government our long gone. If nothing else, the atom bomb put that notion to rest for good. If our government somehow goes bad and has the military on its side, no matter what guns you've got, I'd say you best drop them and get out of dodge.

A country where a very small minority, without much popular support, are still giving us a hard time. In spite of many Iraqis having AK-47s (which, I might add, we let them keep!) they still are not as well armed on average than Americans. And that's the way it is supposed to be under the second amendment.

Atom bombs are usefull for defeating/destroying an enemy nation, not so useful for retaining control of a city and even less so the counryside. The thing that can be hell on any sort concetration of fighters is the smart bomb. But even with those you have to know where the targets are at the time you drop it.

[El Gato]

So should citizens have nukes now too because they're the most powerful weapons our government has? A lot has changed since those days.

They are arms within the meaning of the second amendment. Just as cannon armed warships were when it was ratified. If "alot has changed" since "those days", the constitution allows for it's amendedment. It does not allow that simply be ignored, or "re-interpreted" by folks in black robes, or in pin-stripped suits either.

Captain, USAFR (ret)

[El Gato]

You can always make the argument that weapons that were invented after the amendment was written are not protected by it.

Guess that means that high speed offsett presses, TV, and radio aren't protected by the first amendment either. Nor the Morman religion. Hmm, come to think of it, the Government, all three branches, seems to think that "broadcast" speech is not protected by the first amendment.

[El Gato]

Yes, Monty, the constitution can be amended which is even more of a reason why you need common sense and practicality behind your arguments, not just following the words already in it. It was created as a living document and thankfully so

It was not created as a "living document" in the way most folks use that term. Yes it can be amendmended, but as far as the right to keep and bear arms goes, it has not been. Every soldier, sailor, marine and airman is or has been sworn to support and defend it as written, including yours truly. Not as some political appointee in a black robe "interprets" it, but rather as written and understood when ratified.

[El Gato]

A nuclear weapon indisriminately kills and leaves waste and destruction in its aftermath. A firearm is a precision weapon with clear targets and intentions (if needed).

So? The same could be said of a cannon armed warship in the late 18th century, and the constitution, even putting the second amendment aside, aknowledges private ownership of those. The second amendment says "arms" not "firearms". Are not the treaties which purport to control nuclear weapons called "arms control treaties"?

[El Gato]

Private ownership of WMDs would be the functional equivalent of a private army...the only WMD known at the time...and that is not protected.

The main body of the Constitution, Art I Sec 8, IIRC (where the powers of Congress are enumerated), provides for issuance of letters of Marque. Not much point in that if individuals (or groups) cannot own cannon armed ships. They did of course.