Posted on 06/15/2016 1:18:22 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Bill O’Reilly stunned many viewers Tuesday night when he called for some measures of gun control to be implemented after the terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida, that claimed the lives at least 49 people — the deadliest mass shooting in US history. […]
“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” he said. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades.”
“That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals,” he continued. “They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale. And the states, the individual states, should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their own people.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Ratings??? I wonder what Hannity has to say about this.
District of Columbia v. Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
‘...Shame on Ted for not realizing he would be used as a poster boy...”
For a long time we’ve had the term, “pulp fiction”. Bill has given us the term “pulp nonfiction”. He (mainly his staff) churn out books non-stop that are junk non-fiction and only designed to grab some sales from gift buyers in a hurry.
>>Another retard who doesn’t bother to find out what “well regulated” meant in the 18th century.
He should write a new book called “Killing The Second Amendment” so Martin Dugard can find out what it means and tell BOR so he can take credit for the book and “take care of the folks”.
O’Reilly is, and has always been, a self-aggrandizing asshole. And that’s a memo.
What did it mean?
He got the idea while studying that war crime committed by American troops at Malmedy. Thanks Olog-hai.
Well regulated meant something different in the 1700-1800’s, not what democrats want to regulate in 21st century. Well regulated in 1700-1800’s meant in good working order, or working as intended.
Ooops!!!
That was Yuge!!!
Yeah, and gun control has gotten such great results in Chicago...right?
Democrats and their usual accomplices are doing a good job of changing the topic of conversation from “how the heck did this FBI investigated terrorist buy a gun and have an extra special gun license” to “we need to ban guns”.
“No one can hold a Sherman tank in their arms.”
Yes - that one I might agree with Bill about. Although in the Revolutionary War, many (most?) of the fighting sailing ships armed with cannon were private ships. So not any different than a Sherman tank.
Guns weren’t used on 9/11 or at the Boston Marathon.
BOR considers Freerepublic to be a “far-right” website. his show has become nearly unwatchable due to dimwit guests like kirsten powers. and whoraldo is on there all the time.
Good summary. He also writes predominantly about people who are dead and can’t dispute his take .
When I was a kid you could buy a War Surplus Anti-Tank Cannon from an Ad in the back of a Magazine for $100 or so.
Never heard of any Crimes committed using one.
In the 18th century and in the context of the 2nd Amendment, “well-regulated” meant well-practiced and of good discipline...hence the use of the term “regular” (such as the “British Regulars”, aka the “Red Coats”) when describing the foot soldiers of the day.
So in the context of the 2nd Amendment, the Founding Fathers aren’t saying that a “heavily restricted” militia is necessary to the security of a free state. They are saying that a “well-practiced” militia is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.