Very Disappointed w/ Bill O'reilly

[labgrade]

Although having not seen the segment, I'd agree that Larry Pratt could do much better on TeeWee - he always seems very lack-luster. (he does do well on radio though).

Excellent letters to the Big-O, folks, but the short-to-the-point-"pithies" are what will be aired - if any. His mind IS already made up, no? Don't be disappointed that The No Spin Zone doesn't air any of your letters that don't advance his own "spin."

My "letter?' =

'Bill, you ignorant media-slut!

How dare you even discuss an issue with which you obviously have no clue.

Want a true No-Spin take on the AW theme?

Try the US Constitution, Second Ammendment."

 

[son of a gun]

That's what I would expect from a current or former NEA (National education association) member.

 

[Sean Smith]

I'm afraid that I've always considered Bill to be an arrogant clown.

 

[Augustwest]

No one needs an assault weapon to defend their home.

No, just their freedom.

 

[clange]

"Instead of asking why we, the people, should be allowed to own assault weapons, you should be asking why we, the people, should allow these treasonous attacks on the second amendment to continue. The second amendment is NOT about sport or hunting. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant us anything. It doesn't allow us any rights. It restricts government from infringing on rights we already have..or at least it used to."


To hell with that anti-freedom ???????.

 

[mephisto]

Geek, very good response. It has been said before and will be said here many to come we don’t need “assault riflesâ€. But we have been given the right to bear arms. That can’t be taken away from us, and if it is taken away what will be the next right we loose? The sad thing, about this unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in, is that whenever an individual uses a gun in a crime every gun is put on trial. You never hear about the times when a gun is use to save someone from a horrible situation. Do I ever wish to be put in a situation that causes me to use my guns? No. But I have the right, and I will use that right, to “bear arms†to protect my family or myself. And we all know that when the S%^* hits the fan these people so set on “ controlling†guns will be the first to call on those who have guns to protect them

 

[Spark]

"Mr O'Reilly -

For a former history teacher, you seem to have forgotten the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. There's no need for assault weapons? Maybe you should tell that to the Warsaw Ghetto survivors who fought off the Nazi's with what they could scavange thanks to gun control laws. Too old of an example? How about the Korean shop owners who used assault weapons to defend their businesses during the LA Riots? I guess the No Spin Zone needs a refresher course.

Kevin Schlossberg
Louisville, Kentucky"

Sound bites are everything.

 

[Partisan Ranger]

Dear Bill,


In 1850, ‘most people’ favored treating blacks as property. In 1940, ‘most people’ favored staying out of the war as Britain starved.


In 2003, you claim that ‘most people’ favor a ban on assault weapons. Even if it is true (the AWB barely cleared Congress in 1994 and the House voted to repeal in 1996, so I doubt it), that doesn’t make it right.

PR

Winchester VA

 

[jimpeel]

Guys, the letters he reads are never more than two screens. If you send long dissertations on the Second Amendment, etc., you will never make the show. They likely don't read the long-winded responses as they won't fit the "two screen" format.

 

[ILLINI]

O'Reilly grew up on Long Island and probably does not have a great familiarity with fire arms. Hence, he is probably ignorant of gun-related issues. He clearly stated that he is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership. This is a different stance than most talking heads in mainstream media who are anti-gun across the board. Rather than writing O'Reilly off, I believe that an attempt should be made to educate him.

The view that O'Reilly expressed is fairly common across the US. I know deer hunters who love their scoped 30-06 bolt action rifle or Ruger Mini 30, but are very uncomfortable with a semi-auto AK 47. The former is equally or more "dangerous" and has a traditional look, while the latter is more sinister looking. These people would feel comfortable banning the AK, but not the Mini 30 even though they fire the same round. Education is the key.

O'Reilly is somewhat obnoxious and controversial. He does not claim to be conservative or liberal; instead, he classifies himself as an independent. I think he is easy to figure out. He is conservative on fiscal and economic issues. He wants to see accountability for public expenditures. He supports a traditional view of the Constitution and believes that change should occur through the legislature, not the courts. He is liberal with respect to environmental issues and the "right" to sue. He is moderate on religion and gay rights (pretty much "don't ask, don't tell").

O'Reilly does not guarantee equal time to each side. He hates prepared statements and trite arguments. He classifies his show as a "news analysis" program. His show is successful because he addresses controversial topics and shuts down the prepared speeches. Those people visit Larry King.

I don't always agree with him, but I enjoy the show... Illini

 

[Balog]

labgrade: Actually, the Second is found in the BoR's.

He supports a traditional view of the Constitution and believes that change should occur through the legislature, not the courts.

The traditional view that "I should determine what you can own?"

 

[PlayTheAces]

I happened to catch his comments last night while eating dinner. Suffice it to say another e-mail has been sent. Just a polite note informing him the assault weapon ban has nothing to do with bazookas and machine guns but deals with semi-auto rifles.

 

[Nightfall]

Well, I just watched the night after show, and we got a short mention. Some e-mail stating that the AWB had nothing to do with bazookas. O'Reilly saying he was being facetious.

He ignored the whole point of our e-mail deluge and side stepped the issue by addressing a technicality. Oh well.

 

[GhostCat]

Right, but you could tell by his manorisms tonight (The night after) that he really got alot of emails about the subject and it made some sort of affect on him......Tonight he said that what he said last night was a joke........so instead of admitting he was wrong, he said he was just joking.

Well, if nothing else, folks...we made him think about it......GOOD JOB on the emails......

GhostCat

 

[ILLINI]

O'Reilly grew up on Long Island and probably does not have a great familiarity with fire arms. Hence, he is probably ignorant of gun-related issues. He clearly stated that he is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership. This is a different stance than most talking heads in mainstream media who are anti-gun across the board. Rather than writing O'Reilly off, I believe that an attempt should be made to educate him.

The view that O'Reilly expressed is fairly common across the US. I know deer hunters who love their scoped 30-06 bolt action rifle or Ruger Mini 30, but are very uncomfortable with a semi-auto AK 47. The former is equally or more "dangerous" and has a traditional look, while the latter is more sinister looking. These people would feel comfortable banning the AK, but not the Mini 30 even though they fire the same round. Education is the key.

O'Reilly is somewhat obnoxious and controversial. He does not claim to be conservative or liberal; instead, he classifies himself as an independent. I think he is easy to figure out. He is conservative on fiscal and economic issues. He wants to see accountability for public expenditures. He supports a traditional view of the Constitution and believes that change should occur through the legislature, not the courts. He is liberal with respect to environmental issues and the "right" to sue. He is moderate on religion and gay rights (pretty much "don't ask, don't tell").

O'Reilly does not guarantee equal time to each side. He hates prepared statements and trite arguments. He classifies his show as a "news analysis" program. His show is successful because he addresses controversial topics and shuts down the prepared speeches. Those people visit Larry King.

I don't always agree with him, but I enjoy the show... Illini

 

[WvaBill]

Yeah, but awhile back,he was in favor of "professional jurors." I think it came about from all the celebrity cases being tried on TV. Verdicts different from what he thought was just. Hey, if you're goin to do that, save money, have bench trials.

 

[Erik]

Bill,
As a law enforcement officer I can think of more instances where citizens possessing "assault weapons" served the cause of justice than injustice. Leave the weapons in the hands of responsible Americans, which is right where our Founding Fathers wanted them.

Erik...

 

[WvaBill]

Erik,

I think he is a populist wannabe who has the best-rated huckster show on cable TV. One teeny notch above Dick "Hillary is coming" Morris.

Bill

PS I think the AWB ****.

And if you meant that as a note to Bill O.,

 

[twoblink]

During the Rodney King incident, my mom's friend owned a TV store downtown...

There were several stores on the entire street, and only 1 didn't get broken into and looted..

HIS..

Maybe because he asked them nicely not to loot his place.. yeah.. that was it.. and oh..

Probably that 2 boxes of 12 gauge #00 buckshot and the Remington 870 on his lap. He sat on TOP of one the big screen TV's with a Remington shotgun on his lap, and when someone came in, he asked "Anything I can help you with??" (and politely too)

you might not need an "assault rifle" unless it's you against many.. and it's not like that ever happens in major cities like LA.. errr. except the Watts riot, the Rodney King riot..

 

[Angus MacDuff]

O' Reilly has always been the King of Spin, and what better network to be on, than the Fair and right wing Fox News.

 

[Bob Locke]

My wife and I have watched a lot of O'Reilly, too.

I made her turn him off mid-interview with Larry Pratt and told her not to have him on whenever I am around.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Why is anyone surprised? The man is a pretentious loudmouth with more ego than ideas. Plenty of conservatives take a dim view of the 2nd amendment and many other constitutional freedoms.

 

[NY Patriot]

Just for the record...

O'Reilly's May 2002 interview in Playboy magazine...


PLAYBOY: Explain your view on gun control.

O'REILLY: Like with abortion, you can't even talk about gun control without people running around the house with their arms in the air doing the samba because they feel so threatened. I agree that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. It's against the Constitution to ban handguns. However there is absolutely no excuse for any human being on the face of the earth to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. We should have mandatory federal sentencing for all crimes committed with a gun.

PLAYBOY: Does the right to bear arms include AK-47s?

O'REILLY: No. The state has a right to ban certain weaponry as unnecessary. You don't have a right to have a bazooka in your house. It's a public-safety hazard. You can't have it, and if you don't like it, tough.


Piss on him.

 

[LifeNRA]

Originally posted by Angus MacDuff
"O'Reilly has always been the King of Spin, and what better network to be on, than the Fair and right wing Fox News."

I dont always agree with Bill O'Reilly and I think he has an ego the size of Texas. I am glad however that we have Fox News. Without Fox the only side we would ever hear would be the Left.

 

[George Hill]

Emailed Bill this:

Let’s look at the wording of the 2nd. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I consider the 2nd to be in two parts. The first being a Militia to secure a free state. People, do you realize what this means? This is NOT about a freaking National Guard. This is about a 4 Branch of Government – The Governed – that puts Checks and Balances against the other 3 Branches. We are all a part of this 4th Branch. We are the Citizens, the Voters, and we are what the Legislative Branch is supposed to Represent and what the other 2 branches are supposed to protect. Our Government is supposed to be “For the People, By the Peopleâ€â€¦ and it can’t be unless The People have the means to check the Government. Look at the first two amendments in the bill of rights – it insures our right to check the Government. As a new nation, we had just gone through this and they knew this to be an important part of the stability of the new government. The weapons of the time were muskets and cannon. We were already seeing revolutions in small arms back then. Rifles were a HUGE advance over the muskets. This gave the colonials greater range and accuracy that trumped the capabilities of the Brown Bess musket that the Red Coats carried. It is argued that Congress at the time could not foresee high capacity machineguns like the M-16 or weapons such as an RPG. Brothers and Sisters of the Horde – I submit to you that all such advances in small arms were taken into account in the wording. I humbly suggest that when they said “Keep and Bear Arms†they were talking about all “Small Arms†as defined by contemporary military terminology. Small Arms are weapon systems that are Man Portable and do not require mounting to ships or tanks. So while we should probably not be allowed to have an M1 Abrams – We should ABSOLUTELY be allowed to have the RPGs or AT-4s so that we can combat the M1. Look, I am not a Revolutionary espousing an uprising or any of that bull????. I’m just saying that The People according to the Founding Father’s intent – has the Right to own – AND BEAR - such arms as are necessary for the security of a free state. Machine Guns – Yes. RPGs – Yes. M1 Abrams, maybe not. F-18 Hornet – maybe not. Stinger Missiles to combat the F-18? Indeed, YES. THE SECOND AMENDMENT ISN’T ABOUT HUNTING – ITS ABOUT FIGHTING. ITS ABOUT COMBATING AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT. THAT MEANS ITS ALL ABOUT GUNS LIKE THE AK-47 WEATHER THEY ARE POLITICALLY CORRECT OR NOT.