O'Reilly on guns
I never liked Bill O'Reilly. I may agree with him on some issues, but I find his radio show irritating, his style pushy, obnoxious and unintelligent, and his television show unwatchable. I know many of you will disagree, and you are free to do so. I, however, am convinced that if you invite someone to discuss issues on your show - be it someone with whom you agree or not - you need to let them speak and not obnoxiously interrupt them with your own screechy screeds. That is what O'Reilly does. Having done radio shows for several years, both in the military and civilian world, I find his style objectionable.
That's just me. Your mileage may differ.
I do, however, find his latest contention that somehow the weather suspends the Bill of Rights to be abhorrent.
Watch.
So apparently the same government that has trouble keeping peace in times of emergency and has absolutely no obligation to protect individual citizens from violence should have the authority to suspend their right to take care of themselves and use effective tools to do so. It's during emergencies and disorder that we need firearms for protection the most! Ask the Korean shopkeepers who used firearms to protect their businesses after the LA Riots, when the "authorities" couldn't keep control of the situation. Ask anyone who has ever had to wait for the police to arrive and had to defend their own lives.
Hell, even the emo libtards at Democratic Underground think he's a dimwit! And that's saying something!
Thanks, O'Reilly! Did I mention you're a repugnant tool?
That's just me. Your mileage may differ.
I do, however, find his latest contention that somehow the weather suspends the Bill of Rights to be abhorrent.
Watch.
So apparently the same government that has trouble keeping peace in times of emergency and has absolutely no obligation to protect individual citizens from violence should have the authority to suspend their right to take care of themselves and use effective tools to do so. It's during emergencies and disorder that we need firearms for protection the most! Ask the Korean shopkeepers who used firearms to protect their businesses after the LA Riots, when the "authorities" couldn't keep control of the situation. Ask anyone who has ever had to wait for the police to arrive and had to defend their own lives.
Hell, even the emo libtards at Democratic Underground think he's a dimwit! And that's saying something!
Having been on the outskirts of Hurricane Charley a strong Category 4 hurricane which hit Florida in 2004, and living through numerous strong tropical storms I can strongly say that when you might need a firearm the most is in an emergency. Florida has a long track record of dealing with hurricanes and never has confiscated firearms from honest citizens.First, I find myself agreeing with Hillary Clinton, and now the DUmpster crowd. Hell must REALLY be freezing over.
Plus, the courts ruled that New Orleans was required to return the confiscated firearms to the rightful owners and Louisiana and other states passed laws prohibiting the confiscation of legal firearms during a state of emergency.
Bill O'Reilly may be a favorite voice of conservatives but he is in no way a friend of gun owners.
Thanks, O'Reilly! Did I mention you're a repugnant tool?
Posted by Nicki at 2/20/2010 10:15 AM 
Categories: Guns,gun control,Constitution
Tags: guns gun control Second Amendment useless tyrannical swine Constitution
Categories: Guns,gun control,Constitution
Tags: guns gun control Second Amendment useless tyrannical swine Constitution
The declaration of "state of emergency" seems to justify all things for Mr. O'Reilly. He slid into our attention as an avid "conservative" and Constitutionalist, but that seems be have been a decoy. Under emergency conditions, as you point out, is exactly when free people have the greatest need to protect and defend themselves. The phrase in the oath about defending the Constitution against "all enemies foreign and domestic" seems unequivocal.
Reply to this
Ed, a conservative statist is still a statist.
Reply to this
My wife & I agree with you fully.
Reply to this
I thought O'Reilly revealed all anyone needs to know about his character when he called living up to an oath to uphold and defend the law of the land "extreme".
Reply to this
O'Reilly = Constitutional literacy FAIL
Reply to this
I'll be the first to admit that I've enjoyed O'Reilly many times, even if I disagree with him on the Second Amendment, for example.
I guess where he disappoints is at the Core. He seems to take positions that bump his ratings, rather than advance positions that people may be unfamiliar with. I don't see him as a master of philosophical principles.
I realize I just said nothing. I came here to vote.
Reply to this
Yup, I'm very disappointed in O'Reilly too. He's just too willing to "compromise" the law if he "thinks" it's wrong. He disagreed with the Weihl lawyer lady the night before about the ruling re. the 17yr old girl performing "art" even though she was reading from "the LAW" too. Either someone believes in the rule of law or not. Don't like it, work to change the law. But don't criticize a judge that actually rules IAW the law vs being an activist and making law from the bench. In the Oathkeepers segment, O'Reilly mentioned that the Constitution allows the President to suspend Habeaus Corpus seemingly as justification for suspension of fundamental rights during emergencies. WRONG! First, the authorization for suspension of the Writ of Habeaus Corpus is found in Article I, Sec. 9. Art. I deals with Legislative powers. Second, it specifically states "...shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of REBELLION OR INVASION [emphasis mine] the public safety MAY [emphasis mine] require it." So, the President has no such power. And, if public safety is the overriding government consideration, I would argue that the peaceable, law-abiding public would be LESS SAFE if denied their God-given, fundamental human right to self-defense. He even admitted that there were gangs of looters and criminals running around armed at that time. So, public safety is increased by disarming the peaceable, law-abiding citizens such as the OLD LADY that was IN HER HOME with a small revolver and was criminally assaulted by illegitimate government thugs and disarmed!? That's nuts if you ask me. No government on the face of the Earth has the LEGITIMATE authority to disarm the people. "... all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the ...." Since all men (including women!) have the Right to Life then they logically have the Right to defend that Life. O'Reilly is an elitist and he's grown increasingly arrogant as his ratings have increased. We can get his attention if we can effectively bring his ratings down significantly. He's definitely NOT "looking out" for the people! Nor is he supporting the US Constitution except when he "thinks" it's right. You cannot pick and choose when or what parts you support. You either support it all or you risk loss of all protections found therein. Sorry for being so verbose.
Reply to this
I had just flipped over to watch the guy from Oath Keepers cause I usually can't stand O'Reilly but he really took the cake with his rant and diss of the Constitution. I flipped away from the show after that portion but not before flipping him (O'Reilly) off.
Reply to this
Bill O'Reilly wants what's best for Bill O'Reilly. He's no "friend of the people and hero of the Republic" Since he has tons of money socked away and can afford to either hire personal security or use said money and media presence to make sure he gets what HE wants when HE wants it, all the people who watch him sycophantically can go hang when the fecal matter hits the oscillating object in regards to their own personal safety. Unintelligent and bloviating douchenozzle.
Reply to this
I agree with your assessment of O'Rilley.
I find him annoying, to say the least. His rude treatment of the founder of the
Oath Keepers was just plain rotten. As for his stance on gun prohibition during a state of "emergency", he can shove it.
He falls squarely into the definition of
"statist jackass", with that one.
Reply to this
I was thinking of O'Reilly when I wrote this. It is the new line we need to consider when we start forming voting blocks, because as you said, "a conservative statist is still a statist." http://randomactsofpatriotism.blogspot.com/2010/02/time-for-new-perspective.html
Reply to this