O'Reilly on assault weapons again (vanity)

Fox / O'Reilly Factor | 01/01/2004 | Bill O'Reilly

[autoresponder]

You are arguing with someone who has no knowledge of the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, firearms, other weaponry, tactics, methods, or strategy.

The silly assumption that any federal, state, or local statute will impede anyone from protecting themselves from the government in extreme cases is a childish fantasy.

The LA bank robbery videotapes show the value of showboat legislation aimed at firearms control by government.

Over 90 million US citizens own firearms.

The largest number of honest and peaceable civilian gun owners on earth.

An armed Militia if you will.

The Japanese and Germans feared civilian American firearms owners during WWII.

Peaceful until the government breaks its original convenant with them.

This is what liberals, wimpy idiots, screwballs, sissies, lefties, and dingbat politicians fear.


"Living" is a temporary thing for traitors.

[GregoryFul]

So, like there is no free speech on the internet?

[GregoryFul]

Just like the right to vote and freedom didn't apply to anyone but wealthy male citizens and gradually was extended to others.

I missed that part of the Constution!

[GregoryFul]

Definition: Arm (ärm) n. 1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"This is what liberals, wimpy idiots, screwballs, sissies, lefties, and dingbat politicians fear."


Exactly right. And thank God we are armed.

[Stew Padasso]

"Like you say, you would need to rely on the military to flip to win any civil conflict with the government. So, like I say, whatever weapons you have in your house won't mean a whole lot. Either you'll get access to military-grade stuff and have a shot or you won't."

And that is how you will lose. Best bet is to go after the elite, the bureacrats and so forth. Cowards who hide behind the skirt of government will have a change in heart in no time.

[William Tell]

vbmoneyspender said: "They had bombs and artillery back when the Constitution was adopted by the states, but the 2nd Amendment clearly didn't make provision for the citizenry to have a right to possess or use them."

Could you please explain what laws existed prior to 1934 which prohibited bombs or artillery to any white, free male? Even the 1934 law only required the purchase of a tax stamp. There was no prohibition.

The idea that there are limitations to the right to keep and bear arms is a recent one.

[Squantos]

ROTFLMAO.......You huffing gold paint and postin again ! What'd Mom tell you about doing that ! As to this:

O'Reilly can kiss old brown spot right on the nose ! He doesn't know squat about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It is the glue that binds this republic and is NOT about Hunting or Sport. It is about taking up arms to supress sedition and enemies both foreign and domestic. It is indeed an ugly thought to think that citizens of this nation in modern times need to take up arms to combat such . But with out the 2nd Amendment O'Reilly would be a migrant worker vs the dumbass he presents himself to be when he spews forth such crap.

The AWB is nothing more than a cosmetic rule to provide one more source of revenue for the socialist incrementalism that is upon us ..... For anyone to give substance and time to support or defend the AWB proves them to be the blithering idiots they are IMO

Sad damn day in America when presstitutional efforts to undermind the constitutional freedoms are subsidized by out tax dollars in such a manner..........National Firearms Act Class III fully Automatic Weapons are still legal in almost every state in the union yet folks believe because my Semi Automatic HBAR looks like and M-16 then it must be an Assault Weapon too...........Guess that line of reasoning makes all pretty ladies porn stars and everyone with a first aid kit an MD practicing without a license ............damn....just damn !

Sorry about the rant and grammar as it hard to type with my fist !....Stay safe !

[Squantos]

PING to my post above.....

[Mr. Mojo]

This is one example of his ignorance. Another is his support of Gay's adopting kids.

Yep, and he's also on an anti-SUV crusade ("they contribute to global warming"), saying several times he wants the gov't to ban them. .....So he has his head up his arse about quite a number of issues.

[Travis McGee]

The 2nd amendment ain't about deer huntin' or duck huntin' Bill.

But it is about huntin', you might say. Come to that.

[ezo4]

actually its more like 1% of semiauto military styled rifles in civilian hands that are used in crimes in this nation

[autoresponder]

AWB, "drop-test", smart gun, too large caliber, unrifled bore, too large capacity, too short a barrel, too light, too military looking, dangerous ammo, made of styrofoam, owned by civilian, .....

[RandallFlagg]

OK, I give up...

What the hell is that thing and where can I get one?

[Oztrich Boy]

You can always make the argument that weapons that were invented after the amendment was written are not protected by it.

Ans you can make the argument than anything other than a single sheet flat bed hand operated printing press is not protected by the fires amendmant.

[Rifleman]

You don't understand how a resistance would work. The average joe would have no chance against our troopers, but why would he attack them? They would be, given the oportunity, on the side of profreedom rebels.

Soldiers are hard targets. Politicians and government functionaries are not.

[teeman8r]

You missed my point. If you continue to interpret the amendment that way in modern times, that means the ordinary citizen should be able to go to the corner store and buy a nuclear bomb. Clearly interpreting the amendment that broadly with the modern weapons we have now would be chaotic. You can always make the argument that weapons that were invented after the amendment was written are not protected by it.

let us take your argument against citizens being able to purchase(manufacture) nukes... the second amendment guarantees individuals protection against a tyrranical gov't. if that government is threatening to use nukes to annihilate an anti-government faction based in say montana, and the good people around it, i am all for the montana group acquiring the same means to destroy the government faction that would do something like this, if only for the mutual deterrent it provides... ie. the cold war... a government with nukes, and the desire to use them against its citizens is a government worth nuking... of course, our government is supposed to be us, the people. so in essence, everyone owns a piece of the nuke pie... the only problem with nukes is the massive destruction in terms of being a defensive weapon alternative. therefore, if you are limiting stronger less destructive means to prevent a nuclear tyrant from oppressing americans, such as fully automatic weapons of deterrance, then you should ban them from government as well... a slippery slope that can lead to extinction no doubt... but by not banning state of the art defensive weaponry, the tyrants of the nuclear age can and will be kept at ay from using wmd upon americans... i hope i made my point clear, some will see me as a proponent of nuclear proliferation, but i am merely being consistant in my belief that every option must be kept available to americans in the intent of the second amendment. thanks for the opportunity to express my first amendment right... teeman

[Blood of Tyrants]

But what if every able bodied gun owner decided NOT to bow to the government'ts will? If only a tenth of them decide to fight, the troops will be looking down the barrels of at least 8,000,000 guns.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Exactly. Don't fight the troops. Kill the ones who send them.

[JamesA]

I'd say there will be one heck of a REVOLUTION if an attempt is made to remove firearms from the American citizen. "MOLON LABE"