O'Reilly response to anti-gun writer on his program


PDA






ccarnel
April 18, 2007, 09:10 PM
Though I don't think Bill is completely on our side at the end of his show this evening one of England's "citizens" tried to chastise us for our lax gun laws.

Bill set him straight and basically told him that the government in many European countries including England does not like its serfs able to defend themselves from their own government

If you enjoyed reading about "O'Reilly response to anti-gun writer on his program" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
helpless
April 18, 2007, 09:12 PM
He also said that confiscations didnt happen after Katrina. I dont like that guy but, I liked his response the the English guy. Good job :D

glockarmourer40517
April 18, 2007, 09:13 PM
the same reason Soviet Russia LOST when they invaded Afghanistan, everyone there had an AK47 and a crapload of ammo.....

an armed society ALWAYS can overthrow the govt. when tyranny arises.

SoCalShooter
April 18, 2007, 09:17 PM
Saw it, it was pretty good response. I don't always agree with Bill on things and sometimes I know he does not always have his facts right but for the most part he does and ok job.

velojym
April 18, 2007, 09:22 PM
Tonight he was bemoaning the fact that you could buy a Glock in about 10 minutes, when it takes longer than that to buy a drink at Starbucks. He also calls for compromise, such as a return to the deadly waiting period.

One: Maybe Starbucks needs to work on customer service a bit...

Two: I'll compromise. Pick 10,000 laws to knock out of the books, I'll call it a good start.

ccarnel
April 18, 2007, 09:37 PM
I so badly wanted to write in and ask... do you know how many gun laws there are in this country? Then followup with the statement that we need only enforce what is already on the books. WE HAVE ALREADY COMPROMISED. There is already a law on the books stating that "mentally defective" individuals cannot own firearms. Fix the system already in place... stop writing nonsensical and ineffective legislation

velojym
April 18, 2007, 09:40 PM
Or, eliminate the failed system entirely and allow people to take care of themselves for a change...

JWarren
April 18, 2007, 09:42 PM
...one of England's "citizens" tried to chastise us for our lax gun laws.

I am fed up with the rest of the world somehow believing they have the RIGHT to say ANYTHING about the laws in the USA.

They ARE NOT citizens here, and it is NONE of their business. My family has a rich history of shedding blood on foreign soil protecting these same people that somehow believe they should have ANY input into our society.

I doubt that many good serfs of the UK would care for my family-- considering the first John Warren in the US took a bullet (and lived) throwing off the yolk of the good King George.

He is buried in our family cemetary about 3 miles from my home-- along with a citation from both the Veteran's Administration and the Daughters of the American Revolution. I think I'll go lay a wreath on his grave tomorrow and thank him for giving so much to give us the freedom we have today.


God Bless the USA.


John


Edit: One more crack out of them or France, and I'll start telling stories my grandfather told me about landing on Normandy on D-Day-- or his Father in the trenches of WWI. Don't make me pull this car over!

ccarnel
April 18, 2007, 09:53 PM
I never said we didn't need to get rid of many of those 20,000 laws.

It's just appalling that these talking heads don't realize/don't care how much our legislative machinery has churned out in regards to the regulation of Firearms.

It's as if they never research what they talk about (not only about firearms). The feed off and quote each others soundbites and never bother to do any research on what they are talking about. :banghead:

eliphalet
April 18, 2007, 10:39 PM
I am fed up with the rest of the world somehow believing they have the RIGHT to say ANYTHING about the laws in the USA.

I'll second that.

Bill O' is a jerk in many ways, but in others he will say things that need to be said that no one else will, unless it's this Glen Beck guy whom I have only seen once.

Zundfolge
April 18, 2007, 10:46 PM
am fed up with the rest of the world somehow believing they have the RIGHT to say ANYTHING about the laws in the USA.

They ARE NOT citizens here, and it is NONE of their business.

Seems like whenever I debate gun control with Brits or Aussies and I criticize their stupid gun laws that's the kind of response I get.

What do you expect from serfs that have been discouraged from independent thought for the last 3 generations. :rolleyes:

cloudedice
April 18, 2007, 11:54 PM
am fed up with the rest of the world somehow believing they have the RIGHT to say ANYTHING about the laws in the USA.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Don't forget. The Bill of Rights enumerates SOME rights that are deemed unalienable. For a definition of unalienable rights, I defer to another famous document:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

Free speech goes two ways. They have the right to say whatever they want. We have the right to say whatever we want.

redm18
April 19, 2007, 12:03 AM
I think O'Rilely is basically on our side and I congratulate him calling out Rosie O’Donnell. I think the whole 10 minute think was kind of dumb but I don't think that really means he is an anti just a bit confused. He admitted at the end of the segment that even a week long waiting period would not have prevented the shooter from getting the gun because the different parts of government do not communicate. Last night on his show I did enjoy him showing the picture of the glock and calling it the 22 and the Walther as the 9mm.

Ratzinger_p38
April 19, 2007, 12:05 AM
Bill does make a good point in one area - the system screwed up in NOT showing this idiots' court appearance. From what I gather, this WOULD have flagged him. That was a screw up - but not with the gun shop, not the NICS, but with the court/mental health system.

Guys I dont like NICS much either, but our Libertarian-esque "get rid of the NICS, guns are just tools" is a hard sell for most people. This guy should not have been able to get a gun. Being thrown in front of court and then ordered mental dangerous (or whatever it was) imo prevents him from getting a gun, for good. The mental health people screwed up big time, but theyll try to blame it on the gun 'culture'.

As much as we toss around what gun laws might be brought up, I think the one that will pass the improvement of the NICS act, which I admit has a couple good things in it (supposed to prevent all those mis-denies some here were getting) but I worry people like myself who took anti-depressants as a kid would get me in trouble. (I was never in trouble with the law, no court ordered mental exam, etc)

JWarren
April 19, 2007, 12:15 AM
If you work within the unalienable point of view, I do agree that they have the rights under the assumptions WE operate under to say what they please.

There are many things that we have the right to do that is still idiotic to do. My point is that WE created this nation, we bled for it, defended it, and therefore OUR right to self-determination is the only relevant issue regarding our internal affairs. I should point out that many Americans have bled for THEIR right to exist as well.

We see this constantly. We fight for the weak of the world, and then WE are criticized. Whether other countries get it or not, it is that same ideological spirit in the USA where our "pathalogical addiction to our right to self-defense" (quoting a recent UK article) that also fuels our willingness to bleed and die for those who cannot help themselves.

Sure, we recognize their unalienable rights, but I am not so certain that THEY even understand their rights as unalienable. A recent "The Guardian" article I read discussed the nature of being "subjects" as opposed to "citizens" in the UK. I can dig up the article, but the premise was that the rights of the people were theoretically GRANTED by the Queen and Commons.

Those are not the perspectives I ever care to see in our country.


Still, I completely get your point. And I still think that they would get out of our politics. This is one of the fundimental principles of why we have to register foreign lobbyists with Congress.


John

AZRickD
April 19, 2007, 12:23 AM
He was back at it today.

Yesterday a caller challenged him to go to the NRA website to watch the NOLA gun confiscation videos, specifically the old lady.

O'Reilly announced today that he watched the video and said it showed (very close paraphrase) "an old, deranged lady who was brandishing a firearm and refusing to evacuate as she was ordered to do. The police had no choice...I can wait seven days for my dry cleaning. You guys can wait seven days for a Glock."

Some points for my eventual e-mail to him on his web page:

1) She was not "deranged." No court had adjudicated her as such and no one made that claim.

2) She was on dry land. There was no flooding in her neighborhood.

3) She was not "brandishing" the gun. The LEOs (imported from California) asked her how she would fare in this situation. She said she would be okay -- she had food and water and her gun. The LEOs asked to see the gun. She held it with her hand around the cylinder (backward). Then the LEOs jumped her.

4) A mandatory evacuation order does not mandate that any individual leave. See Mount St. Helen.

5) Other videos showed NOLA residents getting their guns confiscated from their property and not told to evacuate (remember the "they were upset because we were better armed than they were" comment).

And so on.

You might wish to educate him: http://www.billoreilly.com/askbill

Rick

Jeff White
April 19, 2007, 12:26 AM
Who are his sponsors? If Al Sharpton can get rid of Don Imus, the internet gun community can put O'Reilly on the public access cable channel.

We have the power, we did it once. Let's flex some muscle.

Jeff

CapnBald
April 19, 2007, 12:26 AM
In many things I agree with Bill O'Reilly. Some times I feel he should do more research before he makes some of his statements, but basiclly he's not too bad. I don't think he's really done his homework on the gun laws and facts. However I do think he's more on our side than against us. Hopefully over time he'll improve.
Some one mentioned Glenn Beck in an earlier post. I listen to him most days and he's let it be known many times that he's all about letting people carry guns and defend themselves. He has a pretty big audience and we need more like him speaking up.

JWarren
April 19, 2007, 12:31 AM
You might wish to educate him: http://www.billoreilly.com/askbill


Thanks for that link Rick. I will throughly educate him in the AM. His Katrina comments have had my acid reflux full blown for two days.

I'll make SURE to give him my accounts of 8 weeks of Katrina and kindly offer him a cot for the next one.


John

Ratzinger_p38
April 19, 2007, 12:35 AM
an old, deranged lady who was brandishing a firearm and refusing to evacuate as she was ordered to do. The police had no choice...I can wait seven days for my dry cleaning. You guys can wait seven days for a Glock."


Well, if the mental health court did their jobs, why should there be a wait? Remember there was a wait before they automated the system. What purpose does it serve? Or is this a secret way of supporting the Brady 'cooling off' periods? Its one thing if a dealer doesnt know the buyer, but my local shop owner knows me on a first name basis, knows I live 5 miles from his shop and am not getting a gun to go on a rampage (that and no gun I own is newer than 1943) :P

Guy B. Meredith
April 19, 2007, 12:40 AM
The Aussies have the additional disadvantage that they started off as a penal colony with "bosses" and convicts and they sometimes seem not to have gotten pass the "boss" mentality. Their folk history is fat with stories of overbearing authority.

velojym
April 19, 2007, 02:24 AM
I don't believe I'd assume that he wouldn't be able to purchase or steal a firearm during the month or so he seemed to be planning this thing.
Remember, criminals don't *need* gun dealers anyway. He would have gotten it anyway.
I'm sure most of you have seen his video clips... that guy was disturbed. Decided he was the Second Coming with a Glock...

Anotherguy
April 19, 2007, 04:18 AM
"In many things I agree with Bill O'Reilly. Some times I feel he should do more research before he makes some of his statements, but basiclly he's not too bad. I don't think he's really done his homework on the gun laws and facts. "

It's not that he hasn't done his "homework". He's emotionally driven and not on our side. He's anti gun ownership. Stop making excuses for the hack.

If it walks like a duck.... get it?

John Hicks
April 19, 2007, 08:30 AM
I just watched the O'Reilly/Miller segment and came away with a couple realizations:

1: Bill O is not on our side, but he's willing to listen. He's one of those "let's find a way to make everyone happy on this issue". That usually means compromise -- remember at heart he's an Ivory Tower conservative; he likes to think utopian, but in a conservative light. To him, things like a waiting period and such make sense, even if they do nothing in reality.

2: He made a really good point about the courts and the NICS. Had that court-ordered psycho-therapy been in his record, the background check would have failed. Also, had formal charges of stalking been filed, the check would have failed. So better communication between agencies would have helped.

3: Both he and Miller made great points about how you just can't detect this kind of evil and stop it all the time.

Finally:

4: Miller had a great line about an emotional cooling off period in the wake of a tragedy. 48 hour-pass to let the rhetoric die down and people come to grips with what happened. Thankfully none of my anti-gun friends (there are very few of them) have raised any issue and neither have I.

just my take. I think as a talking point goes, we need to focus on #2 up there and change the debate from more gun laws to fixing the existing check system.

jh

ETCss Phil McCrackin
April 19, 2007, 11:23 AM
I've been watching Bill for some time now and, overall, I like the stuff he puts out. The problem is, that unless a media/politicial figure sits in the same pro-gun category as Ted Nugent, or members on this board, he is decried as "not on our side". Now, I think he's more on our side than he is against it, it's just unfamiliarity and "not a big issue for me" syndrome that have to be addressed. Every one of us has something that we have an opinion on, yet hardly know enough about the topic to really make an informed decision. Gun control seems black and white to us because we REALLY care about that particular topic. To further that goal, I try to send informative and consise messages to all of those I feel are restricted by their ignorance. Maybe a little info is all some people need, otherwise, sometimes ya gotta accept "just about there" behavior.

AZRickD
April 19, 2007, 11:37 AM
ET,

His problem is that he was just plain wrong on several points regarding VT, NOLA, and RKBA. And he defamed a little old lady in the process because he was busy being flippant.
I feel he should do more research before he makes some of his statements, but basiclly he's not too bad. I don't think he's really done his homework on the gun laws and facts.
Rush Limbaugh was in the same boat twenty years ago. A few years of pro-RKBA callers getting through and he gradually got educated.

Don't look for Bill to change his tune anytime soon. Like many of us, he is in circle-the-wagons defense mode on his foolish statements. He'll spend a lot of time digging a deeper hole before he comes around.

Be polite in your e-mails to him. He has stated that bad language makes him reach for the delete button. Let's not give him any excuses. :)

Rick

Libertylover
April 19, 2007, 12:32 PM
Uh, to correct the person that said if stalking charges had been FILED, he would have been declined on the background check, that's not necessarily true. You need to be CONVICTED of a felony or domestic violence related charge to be turned down, not merely charged with something then have it dropped.

And somehow, I think that civil committment hearings fall somewhat short of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", right to counsel, right not to incriminate yourself, and various other things that most in our Anglo-Saxon justice system would deem "due process of law", but I'm no lawyer. Perhaps one of them could chime in.

Either way, anybody can SAY you're crazy. I've had some whacked out exes try to pull that crap with me before. What is the actual evidence needed, and what is the standard of proof needed, to deny someone their human right to defend their life with the best tools available?

Bottom line, the only way to stop these kinds of things, or at least lessen the impact, is to greatly reduce the crap one must go through to be able to legally CCW, and completely eliminate any restrictions of CCW on college campusses. ONE professor or ONE student with a CCW could have ended the situation much sooner and saved who knows how many lives.

If you enjoyed reading about "O'Reilly response to anti-gun writer on his program" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!