O'Reilly on assault weapons again (vanity)

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

[Sender]

O'Reilly: "I believe in the Second Amendment, that includes rifles and handguns, so that people can protect their families..."

"...the vast majority of Americans agree on this (renewing the assault weapon ban)..."

"...when you get into the assault weapons, the big guns, you're out on the fringe."

[JediJones]

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.

[JediJones]

Yes, Monty, the constitution can be amended which is even more of a reason why you need common sense and practicality behind your arguments, not just following the words already in it. It was created as a living document and thankfully so.

[Woahhs]

So should citizens have nukes now too because they're the most powerful weapons our government has? A lot has changed since those days.

Just for the record, because no doubt you've had this distinction pointed out before and chosen to ignore it, "arms" are not weapons of mass destruction. The definition of arms was well understood at the founding. That the term "arms" has been arbitrarily co-opted to also denote WMDs does not mean you get the right to them also. Private ownership of WMDs would be the functional equivalent of a private army...the only WMD known at the time...and that is not protected.

Your argument turns on the most simplistic of logical fallacies: the alternative definition of words.

[the blood of tyrants]

"Bill is a limousine liberal."

That's why he's worried about "big guns".

The liberals all know that they have to come out sometime.

[kcar]

I saw that too and gagged - immediately went to the Bang list to check for posts. What a Federalist windbag he is! He also made a comment about nobody voting on gun issues. Tell that to the Gore-2000 team who worked in TN or WV.

[Aarchaeus]

This looks odd. I always thought he had common sense.

[TC Rider]

The segment was a rerun from a month or so back. Larry Pratt missed a good opportunity to educate BO that the "assault weapons" in question are not assault weapons at all, but semi-automatic civilian knock-offs of military type weapons which were banned simply because of their looks.

The way I heard it, O'Reilly said he supported 'a' ban on assualt weapons, then went on to correctly identify assualt weapons as bazookas and machine guns. He did not address the current AWB.

[whd23]

Look into why and maybe you'll realize why he's a force for good in our nation.

Make no mistake about it, Bill O'Reilly is a force for Bill O'Reilly and nothing or nobody else. If the good of the nation happens to coincide with what's good for Bill, then bully for him. But don't fall for this "Who's looking out for you?" crapola.

[JediJones]

Once again, you're interpreting what's there your own way. Deciding that armies are equivalent to WMDs is a nice interpretation, but clearly not intended by the constitution since WMDs didn't exist then. I could just as easily say that assault weapons are not what the founders intended to be covered, and would be the equivalent of starting a private army. Like I said, you can always argue that anything not invented at that time isn't covered by the amendment. So O'Reilly's position is not invalid on constitutional terms, it's just an opinion based on practicality and common sense. If you want to convince me or I assume him, you'll have to prove why the unfettered ownership of assault weapons benefits our country.

[Woahhs]

I think the days of any weapon you might harbor in your home being of any use to protect yourself against our government our long gone.

Again, you would be wrong. Bringing the full might of the United States Military against it's own citizens in a nice clean "us" vs. "them" is a fantasy.

[bethelgrad]

I'm not much of a gun enthusiast and have only been to one machine gun show in Louisville, KY. I never felt safer than around thousands of gun owners who new what they were doing.

These guys who want the big guns have to register them and prove they are law abiding. They also have to be able to present them whenever the feds want to see them. Doesn't seem like a fair trade off to me, but these guys just love there guns. And I've never heard of one instance where they were misused in any way.

Now I've heard of plenty of cases where criminals who weren't even legally allowed to own guns (mostly smaller calibur)using them criminally. Seems like Oreilly wants to continue punishing law abiding citizens.

[what's up]

whatever weapons you have in your house won't mean a whole lot.

The more arms the citizenry has, the more Gov't will have pause about how far to go with tyranny.

The weaker the citizenry, the easier a dictator knows it will be to run rough-shod over the public's wishes.

Some arms will always be necessary for the citizens in order to maintain a democracy.

[wingster]

"The more I hear this guy the less and less I like him."

Yep! Me too. One of the things that I hate the most about his "ways", are the way he says "I'll give you that last word" and then makes an argument to that "last word" anyway.

At times I think he believes he's next in line to God.

[Nebr FAL owner]

Nonsense it is literally impossible to provide air tight security for every govt functionary out to 1000meters & one person with determination and a little skill can change history don't believe me ask Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray.

[Bogey78O]

A rifle is functionally no different from the musket. Same principle, same lethal probability (a bullet kills the same as a musket ball), and same basic design.

A nuclear weapon is not an arm (you missed that point entirely). Just the same as Weaponized Anthrax is not the same as the common cold culture.

You also miss that your argument could easily be applied to radio and TV broadcasts. That's why it's almost a truism that the gun grabbers can't win an honest debate.

[JediJones]

Yes, that's correct, Bill was addressing the general idea of a ban on assault weapons. He didn't address any specific legislation. O'Reilly covers IDEAS on his show more than details. It's the wrong format for details anyway. So to draw out his statements to supporting any specific legislation which may have unrelated riders tacked on would be a total strawman.

[Woahhs]

Deciding that armies are equivalent to WMDs is a nice interpretation, but clearly not intended by the constitution since WMDs didn't exist then.

An Army is a WMD by definition. If you don't understand that, no rational debate is possible.

[Conservative_Nationalist]

If we had another civil war our Government, including Military, would break apart onto different sides the same as it did in the first civil war. If our government ever falls it will be from the inside. Most people never thought the Soviet Union would break apart the way it did either(Which was rather quickly), but it did. The United States today is, in ways, much worse on the domestic side than it was 50 years ago. Political Correctness is ruining this country slowly and something must be done about it sooner or later or this country will be history.