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."

[PattonReincarnated]

I wish the media, O'Reilly included, would stop abusing the American language with vague, politically correct terms like "assult rifle". As if a pre-ban AR-15 is really any more dangerous than a post-ban AR-15. Personally, I'll choose my unplugged 11-87 anyday than a so-called assult rifle. My 11-87 is great for close-in work, and you can keep pulling the trigger until the wall board is blown away so you don't have to clean up the blood.

[Teacher317]

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

BIG guns? My one-shot 300 WinMag is bigger than the .223 the DC snipers were using. Does that mean I'm on the fringe, and they are mainstream?

[Stew Padasso]

Stopped listening to this clown long ago. He and all the other gun grabbing liars can GTH.

[JediJones]

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.

[Bogey78O]

You missed the point. At the time of the ratification there was no concept that thre ought to be a limit on what a person can defend themselves with. The anti-gun nuts keep making a specious argument to win an argument they have no hope of winning logically.

[Teacher317]

So then shouldn't Ol' Bill say that "longer distance" guns are "on the fringe"?

[Woahhs]

"I believe in the Second Amendment"

Yea, the same way the democrats "support our troops" no doubt. Guess O'R doesn't think you should enjoy "fringe" civil rights...founders be damned!

[JediJones]

You missed my point. If you continue to interpret the amendment that way in modern times, that means the ordinary citizen should be able to go to the corner store and buy a nuclear bomb. Clearly interpreting the amendment that broadly with the modern weapons we have now would be chaotic. You can always make the argument that weapons that were invented after the amendment was written are not protected by it.

[Stew Padasso]

A small % of well armed rabble rousers can give a tyrannical government pause. And the idea is to be smart and not to go out in a blaze of glory.

[Monty22]

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

Same can be said of forms of media or speech itself.

[Sender]

Oh yes, if you have anything with the word "magnum" then you're way out on the fringe :)

[Stew Padasso]

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).

[JediJones]

The notion of free speech as we know it did not exist at the time the first amendment was written. It got much more liberalized over time. Just like the right to vote and freedom didn't apply to anyone but wealthy male citizens and gradually was extended to others. This is why arguments based on strict constitutionalism are not practical. The language can be interpreted different ways and the times have changed so much. If you can't defend your argument on a practical basis or a common sense basis and can ONLY point to your interpretations of words in an old document then you're in a weak position. Your argument NEEDS to fit the language of the constitution, but without those other things to back up your interpretation, you're not going to convince me or a common sense thinker like O'Reilly.

[Morgan's Raider]

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

No need in engaging in hyperbole here. OK, another example. During the thirty years of so following the War of Northern Aggression, the standard issue long gun of the U.S. Army was the single shot trapdoor Springfield. However, civilians could readily go down the the Sundry and Dry-good store and buy a Winchester lever action repeating rifle or the powerful Sharps buffalo rifle, either of which was greater firepower that the standard soldier had. This wasn't a problem 130 years ago, and it shouldn't be a problem now.

The gun-grabbing left-wing maggots aren't pushing their agenda for public safety; they are pushing it because they know 80 million armed citizens are the main thing keeping them from enacting their Marxist policies.

[Monty22]

" It got much more liberalized over time. Just like the right to vote and freedom didn't apply to anyone but wealthy male citizens and gradually was extended to others. This is why arguments based on strict constitutionalism are not practical."

And noticed they actually amended the constitution for this stuff, not just declare it so and be done with it.