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."

[btcusn]

They know they will NEVER get the ~70% support required for a Constitutional amendment to implement their statist agenda, so they invented the concept of a "living Constitution" so that corrupt judges would illegally validate it when a mere 51% voted to enact some tyrannical legislation.


Well, as much as I hate to say it it's up to us, to use the 3 boxes as required.
Jack

[El Gato]

You may well be correct, but infectious diseases were instrumental in the devastation of the Indian tribes

Probably true, but that doesn't mean the infections were deliberate. The Indians had no resistance to European diseases, but the Europeans in turn had no resistance the Indian diseases. The Europeans probably had a higher survival rate only because of a generally higher level of "civilization", for want of a better word. The also had later waves of immigrants to replace those lost to "Indian" diseases.

BTW, that resistance is the likely reason the traders didn't get the smallpox from the blankets.

[meatloaf]

Are you sure about that? I could have sworn Walmart had a couple of full boxes in the ammo aisle. That was during hunting season. They could be out by now.

[meatloaf]

If your local Walmart doesn't stock 20mm, you can always reload your own. Page through the die list till you get to the 20mm. I bet just seeing that list, if they knew what it was, would really set off the antigunners. And they're worried about Saturday night specials. Of course you won't be packing a Lahti under your jacket.

[Dan from Michigan]

My argument is literal and correct. A person is not a weapon...

I own a few guns, but my best weapon is my MIND.

Fists, feet, elbows, knees, hands - ALL of them can be weapons.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I could have sworn Walmart had a couple of full boxes in the ammo aisle.

---

20mm rounds for a anti-tank cannon?

Come on, now.

[meatloaf]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Of course you'd need one of these.

[LandofLincoln]

(Slavery) It would likely have died of it's own weight by the 1890s or so, if not sooner. Slaves were expensive, $1000+ in "then year" dollars was not unheard of, and expensive to maintain. Irishmen were much cheaper for most any job. Chinese were slightly cheaper still, and it one died on you, there was another stepping off the boat to take his place

Trully amazing! With one exception, you did not have to buy EVERY slave. If you had a male slave and a female slave, you could let them mate and then have their little slave for FREE. You need to listen to Jimmy the Greek tapes. On the other hand EVERY Irishman and Chinese worker had to be paid. You are absolutely nuts if you think OWNING a slave was more expensive then highering workers.+

[Hot Tabasco]

You may well be correct, but infectious diseases were instrumental in the devastation of the Indian tribes

You are correct, smallpox did devastate the Indian tribes as well as most of the Central and South Americas. However, given the fact that in that period of our history where nothing was known about infectious diseases, I remain sceptical about the claims that the white man intentionally gave smallpox laden blankets to the Indian tribes in an attempt to eradicate them. The fact that it probably did happen should not overshadow the fact that smallpox was devastating the Americas at that time and no one, regardless of their geographic locale was immune.

Smallpox contaminated blankets during an era where the source of contagions was unknown is just too convenient an excuse.

There is too much to be gained by the PC crowd in allowing this unsubstantiated claim to continue.

These are merely my personal thoughts on this controversial subject which I have never seen explored in print and probably will never do so...........

[El Gato]

You are absolutely nuts if you think OWNING a slave was more expensive then highering workers.+

Think what you want. Irish and Chineese were cheaper, and defintely more disposable. Slaves would do just enough work to "get by", where a hired worker knew he wouldn't eat if he didn't hold up his end, since as I said, there was a hungry replacement stepping off the boat to replace him. Lots of overhead with slaves, if owned alot of them. Overseers had to be paid too you know.

[El Gato]

Nukes, tanks, battleships, etc.... are crew-served, and therefore not covered by an amendment which recognizes the Right of individuals to bear arms.

It also recognizes the right to keep arms. There were plenty of privately owned cannon and cannon armed ships when the amendment was passed.