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."

[Shooter 2.5]

Are you saying the authorities have the Right to ban libraries because of snuff films?

We aren't talking about nukes. We are discussing the semiautomatic versions of the country's service rifle. Those rifles are used in competitions all over the country. They are why the Second Amendment was created.

[vbmoneyspender]

If someone pulls up data showing me assault weapons have caused more unintended or malicious damage than other legal guns, I would be swayed to that side.

If you are going to go around banning things that cause harm when they are used in an illegal or improper fashion, there is a whole list of things you are going to have to end up banning -- like cars, knives, golf clubs, bats, hammers, pipes, etc.

[Lancey Howard]

If the dork believed in what the 2nd Amendment stood for, He would now exactly why the people who founded this country put in the USC

Clearly, they put in the USC so that it could wup Michigan and win the National Championship tonight.

[JediJones]

This is an argument about what is better for our society. I'm not overly worried about what the constitution says when dealing in general theory like this. If we came to a conclusion that the constitution supported, fine, if we felt we would have to amend it, that is another issue. But I don't approach an argument strictly from the basis of what the constitution says.

Also, I don't believe any state has a right to just walk away from the country legally or in theory. And regardless, we would have a moral authority to destroy institutions like slavery whether they were within our borders or not. Which is the same reason I support the Iraq war and other such efforts to spread and maintain our superior values throughout the world.

[lawdude]

"So this would mean you don't consider unchecked invasion of our nation by illegals to come under the blanket of "all enemies, foreign and domestic"?"

Care to point out just where I said that?

[JediJones]

Why can't nuclear missiles or other WMD be used against citizens? Ask the Kurds if you want to know if they can be used domestically.

[Woahhs]

The ONLY weapon of mass distruction in those days were biological weapons, which were used by the fur traders (smallpox laden trade blankets).

Biologicals of the time could hardly be considered weapons in the military sense. At best, they could be considered poisons, and not very dependable ones at that. I'd be inclined to agree with your view if you could cite some militay campaigns in which biologicals were integrated into, and depended upon, for the execution of a battle plan.

Private citizens could and did own ALL the weapons the military had, including cannon.

Very true, but the thing that sets individual weapons apart from the military application of those weapons, insofar as their destructive potential, is their coordinated use to achieve BOTH tactical and strategic goals. The Romans demonstrated beyond argument the facility of the "soldier" over the "warrior."

[Blood of Tyrants]

About the third time I watched him, I decided that he was a "moderate" who occasionally ventured out to conservative grounds. He obviously has no idea of the purpose of the Second Amendment.

[Lancey Howard]

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

"Protecting their families" was not the reason for the second amendment. The second amendment is there so that citizens can overthrow a government that gets out of control and tyrannical. That is why the second amendment is there. Anybody can look it up.

O'Reilly is clueless.

[JediJones]

I think the idea is to ban things that cause MORE harm than good. There is the idea that standard guns are enough to defend yourself against criminal and personal attack. And that the harm caused when automatic weapons are used wrongly outweighs the benefit they have as a form of defense. You don't need a lot of rapid-fire bullets to kill an attacker. But they sure help you if you want to kill a lot of people in a spree.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Dedicated anti-gunners "belive in the Second Amendment". They believe that it gves the state governments the right to raise a militia.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. And Satan believes in God.

[Lancey Howard]

Why can't nuclear missiles or other WMD be used against citizens? Ask the Kurds if you want to know if they can be used domestically.

Okay... so you believe that citizens should be able to have deadly gas and nuclear missles. Makes me nervous, but I'll go along with you, I guess.

[Monty22]

"And that the harm caused when automatic weapons are used wrongly outweighs the benefit they have as a form of defense. You don't need a lot of rapid-fire bullets to kill an attacker. But they sure help you if you want to kill a lot of people in a spree."

I think everyone except libertarians agree on this. However, the specific subject on this thread, the 1993 assault weapons ban, doesn't have anything to do with those weapons. They are long since regulated to the point of needing a ton of effort to get legally.

Unfortunately, you stick the label 'assault weapon' on something, and it looks 'evil'.

[meatloaf]

If the government goes bad, I suspect some civilians may have access to armories and the weapons they contain that in many respects match what the military units have.

Nukes are irrelevant. The stuff that can take out soldiers at a distance aren't. Add a few odds and ends that can target aircraft and helicopters and you've got a hell of a resistance. Keep in mind anyone, as long as they meet requirements, can purchase 20mm weapons. A 20mm shell compares to a .50 cal BMG cartridge as a .22 to a .30-06.

Most hunters in this country don't use .223 poodle shooters like the military.

[vbmoneyspender]

Automatic weapons were already illegal before the 'assault' weapons ban was enacted into law. Let me ask you something -- do you own any guns?

[Monty22]

oops, make that 1994 ban.

[JediJones]

Lancey, I think any intent that's not explicitly written into the constitution is always going to be debatable. And clearly our military technology has rendered obsolete the ability of small arms to overthrow our government. So if that's the only argument in favor of having them, they may as well be banned. But I believe in the personal defense argument.

[JediJones]

I am not a student of the assault weapons ban legislation. But I am sympathetic to the idea that any weapons which can cause more harm when used to attack but at the same time add no benefit to personal defense above a standard gun would be banned. If you can show me that a weapon fits that criteria or not that is essentially my basis.

[Woahhs]

Definition: A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.

Thank you Merriam Webster. It's not my problem if your understanding of mathematics only runs to arithmetic if I'm talking algebra.

Doctrinaire observations notwithstanding, your "guy who pushes the nuke launch button" is the functional equivalent of a general. Whether he razes a city by pushing a button, or giving an order is largely irrelevant. It's not like the general gives the order to attack to each and every soldier under his command.