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."

[Bogey78O]

'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.'

Actually it's you who's trying to amend the constitution through the interpretation of language. The ideals set forth in the constitution were summed up only in thoise words and left to the judciary to decide which situations fit into those concepts. Since then everythings turned on it's ear and now the judiciary decides what the words should mean and what they think it ought to apply to.

Nice move calling the Constitution an 'old document' in order to dismiss it. You sure you're at the right site?

[JediJones]

Heh, I ignored that comment about "The War of Northern Aggression" but now you're using the actions of Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray to support your argument for more gun rights. None of this is going to win me over...Like O'Reilly I'm from the northeast, and have no sympathy for the confederate flag-flying elements of our country.

[JediJones]

An army is not a WMD by any literal definition of the term. An army is a group of people who USE various weapons. Some have sad Saddam Hussein was a WMD. A nice concept too, but has no literal basis to it.

[nutmeg]

FoxFan ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

[JediJones]

I said it's an old document, because, it is. My point was it may not apply or cover situations the founders didn't predict. Certainly a technology-related amendment like one related to weapons would be the first to become potentially obsolete.

I'm saying by definition we need to stick to the words of the constitution, or amend those words. But I need more than that to convince me something is right. I need to see practicality, common sense, and results. Because of the very fact that it can be amended that should always be what we go on as the basis for our argument. You can certainly use the constitution to bolster your argument when the principles still apply.

And as far as free speech and the modern mass media, the fundamental principles of free speech still apply, such as that when all the ideas are out there, the best of them will rise to the top. It's not that everyone didn't have access to some form of media back then. The written word had no less ability to spread and disseminate widely than electronic media.

[btcusn]

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.

Have to question this. The ONLY weapon of mass distruction in those days were biological weapons, which were used by the fur traders (smallpox laden trade blankets).
Private citizens could and did own ALL the weapons the military had, including cannon.

Jack

[NewHampshireDuo]

The segment was a rerun from a month or so back. Larry Pratt missed a good opportunity to educate BO that the "assault weapons" in question are not assault weapons at all, but semi-automatic civilian knock-offs of military type weapons which were banned simply because of their looks.

I was very unimpressed by Pratt. Bill ran right over his disjointed remarks. The crap that Bill spouted could have been challenged quickly and effectively. Bazookas indeed.

[Morgan's Raider]

The way I heard it, O'Reilly said he supported 'a' ban on assualt weapons, then went on to correctly identify assualt weapons as bazookas and machine guns. He did not address the current AWB

Bazookas have, to my knowledge, never been available to the civilian market. And private ownership of machine guns essentially been banned since 1934 (licensing and ATF registration have had the basic effect of creating a "ban").

No, the only questionaire the NRA would have sent out regarding "assault weapons" in the past ten or twelve years would have been addressing the so-called "assault weapons" ban of 1994. And, as already pointed out, these were not true assault weapons and were put on the list strictly for cosmetic reasons such as flash suppressors and bayonet lugs (they've had a helluva problem with drive-by bayonettings in NYC and LA, haven't they?).

Of course Lautenberg has introduced legislation to not only renew the AWB, but to add a whole string of new weapons to the list such as the Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30.

[Woahhs]

An Army is a WMD by definition. If you don't understand that, no rational debate is possible.

Your refusal to accept a fact does not change that fact, only the viability of any meaningful discussion of that fact.

[dts32041]

You have a problem with this because?

Now me I would like to own a warship much as John Hancock did to aid his smuggling operations.

Come ti think of it I just figured out why ole Joe Kennedy smuggled booze, it is in the new englanders blood.

[beelzepug]

"...border protection using American military..."

So this would mean you don't consider unchecked invasion of our nation by illegals to come under the blanket of "all enemies, foreign and domestic"? Curious.

[JediJones]

Your repetition of an erroneous statement does not change the fact that the statement is still erroneous.

Definition:
A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.

The guy who pushes the nuke launch button is not a WMD. The nuke is. Human beings are not WMDs by definition.

[vbmoneyspender]

They had bombs and artillery back when the Constitution was adopted by the states, but the 2nd Amendment clearly didn't make provision for the citizenry to have a right to possess or use them. The reason is quite simple, those weapons, like nuclear weapons, ensure that innocent people will be killed if they are used. The same, however, cannot be said of 'assault' rifles, which shoot where you aim them. And if you aim wrong and you kill someone you shouldn't have, well then you go to jail. That's why your right to own a rifle is protected under the Constitution, while your right to own bombs, artillery, tanks, jet fighters and nukes is not.

[kcar]

A Republic differs from a democracy in that the opinions of the majority as expressed through elected representatives is constrained by such words as are contained in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. To re-interpret those words liberally is to weaken those constraints. As John Calhoun noted, those is power would generally prefer easing of their constraints, while those out of power would adhere to a stricter construction of the original meaning of this social contract. When power shifts from party to party, roles often switch as well. But that means that those in power are always effecting a weaker and weaker set of constraints. Over time, those words become so diluted they become a dead letter.

Most on this format believe in the strict construction as a matter of principle.

Beware of neo-Federalists passing themselves off as conservatives.

[Conservative_Nationalist]

I also think Armed militias do help keep the government in check even if they have no chance to win an all out war with the government. If the Military kills hundreds of people that have a large group of sympathizers it's going to cause the nation to become more unstable. This is how an eventual civil war with some of the military and politicians breaking apart into different groups. These things sound very unlikely now but if their were actions taken by the government that lead to small battles that got a few hundred people killed it would start something that could go very far. A lot of Americans support and sympathize with militias even if they aren't in them. Their is still a need for well armed and organized militias groups throughout the U.S. because the government knows that it can't just kill these people without consequences. Militia groups were becoming very popular and much more powerful than they had ever been until worthless Timothy Mcveigh bombed the Oklahoma City federal building. That alone made many people stop supporting the Militia movement and made many others ashamed to be apart of them. But the fact is that Mcveigh doesn't represent the majority of people involved in Militias and he shouldn't be seen as someone who represents what they stand for. I would like for the Militias to start recruiting new people and to get a PR group together that could clean up their image and let the American people know what they really stand for.

[btcusn]

I said it's an old document, because, it is. My point was it may not apply or cover situations the founders didn't predict. Certainly a technology-related amendment like one related to weapons would be the first to become potentially obsolete.


Now slow down here!! Is what you are saying is if I think the Constitution is outdated in areas, well just twist the words to make them fit?? Remember this is the SUPREME law of the land, to justify twisting it's meaning is the same thing as saying I can twist ANY law to fit my needs.
If you don't like something in the Constitution, AMMEND IT, DO NOT DISREGUARD IT! Welfare, Medicare, Dept of ED to name a few are all UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I didn't say they were bad, but the Constitution should have been ammended to allow the passage of such laws.
BTW, I'm from the northeast too and I call it the war of northen aggression. It was a matter of states rights to leave the nation if desired.
Jack

[JediJones]

Well, that's the most reasonable argument I've heard so far. I don't have a strong opinion on the issue myself. I just think that there is a reasonable discussion to be had on where the line is drawn in terms of what weapons should be legally owned and produced and which ones shouldn't. If someone pulls up data showing me assault weapons have caused more unintended or malicious damage than other legal guns, I would be swayed to that side.

[Lancey Howard]

I think that the founders wanted citizens to be able to arm themselves to the same degree that a government could arm itself with weapons that could be used against you, the citizen. (Note: That would not include nuclear missles.)

[dbwz]

If you want to convince me or I assume him, you'll have to prove why the unfettered ownership of assault weapons benefits our country.

I guess I must have missed the part where O'Reilly, or anyone else for that matter, explained why ownership of these weapons is a bad thing.

So you, or somebody, tell me - why shouldn't I be able to own modern weapons?