Sorry for the vanity. Just O'Reilly going off again.
1 posted on
01/01/2004 5:16:42 PM PST by
Sender
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
To: Sender
Isn't he supposed to be a conservative?
To: Sender
He's a blow hard...
4 posted on
01/01/2004 5:20:53 PM PST by
demsux
To: Sender
11 posted on
01/01/2004 5:25:56 PM PST by
Tim Osman
(A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves. - Bertrand de Jouvenel)
To: Sender
"I believe in the Second Amendment"
If the dork believed in what the 2nd Amendment stood for, He would now exactly why the people who founded this country put in the USC
12 posted on
01/01/2004 5:26:40 PM PST by
ezo4
To: Sender
the big guns, you're out on the fringe
CMT had a program that showed a clip of a party at Hank Williams Jr's place, they were firing a Civil War era cannon LOL
13 posted on
01/01/2004 5:27:36 PM PST by
1066AD
To: Sender
Not gonna happen Billy boy because there is no political will to reinstate the AWB. The Rats still remember what happened to them in 1994. HAHA...
Say hello to the sunset -- Bill.
14 posted on
01/01/2004 5:27:48 PM PST by
demlosers
(Light weight and flexible - radiation shielding is solved.)
To: Sender
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.
Larry might have also pointed out that, at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, private citizens owned cannon and, indeed, warships, the most powerful weapons of their day.
To: Sender
It's OK. I would still like to hear his explanation of just what constitutes an "assault weapon". A Henry rifle would qualify, no doubt. 13 rounds, ex-military issue...
16 posted on
01/01/2004 5:29:35 PM PST by
jonascord
(Don't bother to run, you'll only die tired...)
To: Sender
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.
To: Sender
"...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?
To: Sender
Stopped listening to this clown long ago. He and all the other gun grabbing liars can GTH.
25 posted on
01/01/2004 5:47:59 PM PST by
Stew Padasso
(Head down over a saddle.)
To: Sender
I saw that too and gagged - immediately went to the Bang list to check for posts. What a Federalist windbag he is! He also made a comment about nobody voting on gun issues. Tell that to the Gore-2000 team who worked in TN or WV.
46 posted on
01/01/2004 6:06:39 PM PST by
kcar
(A gov't big enough to give you everything, doesn't really care about YOU anymore.)
To: Sender
This looks odd. I always thought he had common sense.
To: Sender
I'm not much of a gun enthusiast and have only been to one machine gun show in Louisville, KY. I never felt safer than around thousands of gun owners who new what they were doing.
These guys who want the big guns have to register them and prove they are law abiding. They also have to be able to present them whenever the feds want to see them. Doesn't seem like a fair trade off to me, but these guys just love there guns. And I've never heard of one instance where they were misused in any way.
Now I've heard of plenty of cases where criminals who weren't even legally allowed to own guns (mostly smaller calibur)using them criminally. Seems like Oreilly wants to continue punishing law abiding citizens.
53 posted on
01/01/2004 6:12:53 PM PST by
bethelgrad
(for God, country, and the Corps OOH RAH!)
To: StarFan; Dutchy; Timesink; Gracey; Alamo-Girl; RottiBiz; bamabaseballmom; FoxGirl; Mr. Bob; ...
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.
65 posted on
01/01/2004 6:30:03 PM PST by
nutmeg
(Is the DemocRATic party extinct yet?)
To: Sender
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.)
To: Sender
O'Reilly: "I believe in the Second Amendment, that includes rifles and handguns, so that people can protect their families...""Protecting their families" was not the reason for the second amendment. The second amendment is there so that citizens can overthrow a government that gets out of control and tyrannical. That is why the second amendment is there. Anybody can look it up.
O'Reilly is clueless.
To: Sender
I'm not going to bother getting all excited about the O'Reilly Factor anymore. He's boring. And I'm sure as heck not going to listen to his radio program anymore. Sheeeeeeesh! He's on some kind of an ego trip. He's against capital punishment, too. Doesn't make any sense.
121 posted on
01/01/2004 7:42:18 PM PST by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: Sender
O'Reilly probably thinks the AWB is all about banning fully-automatic rifles -- machine guns. I've spoken to many people about this ban, and even the politically knowledgable ones believe that this is in fact what the AWB is all about.....by a large majority.
To: Sender
I hate Bill O'WrongAboutMostEverything.
123 posted on
01/01/2004 7:49:51 PM PST by
Lazamataz
(G-d gave us free will. The government took it away.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson