O'Reilly on assault weapons again (vanity)

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

[Bogey78O]

'And as far as free speech and the modern mass media, the fundamental principles of free speech still apply, such as that when all the ideas are out there, the best of them will rise to the top.'

And as far as self defense and the modern assault rifle, the fundamental principle of self-defense still applies, such as that when a person has a right to defend themselves from tyranny then tyranny will never rise to the top.

[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.

[Lancey Howard]

And clearly our military technology has rendered obsolete the ability of small arms to overthrow our government.

Actually, I disagree with that. Witness one Lee Harvey Oswald (and company).

[kcar]

That's a debatable point about the inability to overthrow the government by small arms. As previously mentioned, the military would be likely to fracture in a major social upheaval.

But even accepting the premise, the conclusion, it might as well be banned, doesn't follow. Why not, so the Right might as well not be infringed (because the government has nothing to fear)?

Oh yeah, it's all about "safety", right?

[JediJones]

I didn't say an army can't cause mass destruction, but I said it is not a weapon of mass destruction. One big difference is that a WMD can be used by one nut to cause that damage. But an army needs the support of a large number of people, which is one reason why it's a different animal and not a basis for comparison.

[Monty22]

Well 19 nuts with planes can kill 3000 too.

Depends on how far you want to ban things I guess.

It's the people that's the problem, not the tools.

[Bogey78O]

Assault weapons make up less than 5% of criminal use of firearms. I'm thinking it's 2-3% but am unsure.

[JediJones]

"Might as well" be banned means there's no difference whether they are banned or not under that hypothetical scenario.

Again, if you are going to hold presidential assassins out as examples of why the individual citizens' right to bear arms needs to be preserved, you're going to lose the argument all day long. It leads one to question whether the benefit of killing a hypothetical tyrant is greater than the cost of losing some of our democratically elected officials.

[blackbart.223]

"The notion of free speech as we know it did not exist at the time the first amendment was written. It got much more liberalized over time. Just like the right to vote and freedom didn't apply to anyone but wealthy male citizens and gradually was extended to others. This is why arguments based on strict constitutionalism are not practical. The language can be interpreted different ways and the times have changed so much. If you can't defend your argument on a practical basis or a common sense basis and can ONLY point to your interpretations of words in an old document then you're in a weak position. Your argument NEEDS to fit the language of the constitution, but without those other things to back up your interpretation, you're not going to convince me or a common sense thinker like O'Reilly.

God I hope there are not many more like you out there.

The problem is there are.

[Wissa]

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.

Could you please define "standard gun"?

[btcusn]

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.

Well, you can discuss all you want, but when it comes to making law, remember the oath of office for ALL that serve, in Govt or the military. I swear to protect and defend the CONSITIUTION, not the in power govt if what they are doing is unconstitutional. Slavery was a dying institution at the time of the Civil War, and was not the root cause of it, the root cause was the Federal Govt usurping powers that belonged to the states (as I understand it, anyway).
You are right, things in modern times could not have been envisioned by the founders, and they knew that. Therefore amendments are the correct way to change it, not to call it a "Living Document" and bend it to fit your will. If it's that important to enact a law that requires a amendment, let the people of the country vote on it through their state representives. It may not seem a big point to some, but many have given all for that piece of paper. V/r, Jack

[kcar]

When you start doing a cost-benefit "analysis" of the limits of our RIGHTS, we effectively won't have any. The Constitution is a social contract to me. If the government goes too far in violating that, they need to be overthrown. Just this past preseidential election we watched as hundreds of attorneys were flown to Florida to throw out the military vote and to otherwise overturn the results of the election. Had that occurred rebellion would have very well been justified. It's always been either ballots or bullets, preferably the former, but citizens should not weaken the latter lever.

Maybe I'd "lose" those arguments all day long in your part of the country, but the left-right scale is a little offbase there.

[Woahhs]

Nonsense. Your argument is totally circular. One rogue general CAN cause quite a bit of destruction before answering to superiors. While one nut CAN NOT field reliable WMDs without LOTS of support staff in the form of technicians and maintainence, and security.

Your mistake is starting from the point of employment for one, and not the other. Your other mistake is defining the term "weapon" as a single, discrete, mechanism. I might just as well say the DC anthrax attack didn't involve WMDs because it wasn't really a weapon; it was just some white powder.

[ConservativeMan55]

LOL! You hit the nail on the head!

[JediJones]

But in supporting the piece of paper you support its internal permission to amend it. Therefore we can always have an extra-constitutional discussion that might require us to amend the constitution. Therefore, using the argument "but the constitution says this" doesn't help in a case like that. How come I don't see this up-in-arms defense of preserving the constitution when Bush talks about an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Which I would support.

[Auntie Dem]

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.

It doesn't take too much imagination to visualize a group of 4 or 5 thugs terrorizing a neighborhood, and your house is next. You step out on the porch with a 38 special or an AR-15. Which gun do you think will scatter the thugs better?

I bought my Bushmaster for 2 reasons--1, the Clintons said I shouldn't have one (that was enough reason alone) and 2, it inspires a great fear factor in the criminal mind.

BTW, since you believe in a Living Constitution, would you play me a game of high-stakes poker using "Living Rules"? (I get to play the liberal courts)

[Noumenon]

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

Deep down, some of them do know what they're in for; they know what they've been asking for. Most are in denial. 2004 should prove to be a very interesting year.

[JediJones]

My argument is literal and correct. A person is not a weapon...

definitions of weapon:
An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.

An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc.

weaponry used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to carry a weapon"

[blackbart.223]

"BTW, since you believe in a Living Constitution, would you play me a game of high-stakes poker using "Living Rules"? (I get to play the liberal courts)"

You are using too much logic for this person. The Constiution is a contract.

But perhaps this guy is an attorney. Contracts don't mean that much to them.

[btcusn]

The ONLY weapon of mass destruction 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 military 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."

Sorry I quoted the entire post, but you are correct in every point, and I agree, I'm just so sick of hearing about WMD'S like they are a new thing, and pointing out that they were used many times before. But then, as now, the military is loath to use them since like a mad dog, they bite both sides equally.
And as to the second paragraph, I was pointing out the fact that private citizens were not limited in any way as to the weapons they owned other than cost, not whether or not the private citizen was the equal of a trained soldier or even if 12 citizens are the equal of a squad of trained soldiers, which they are not.Training will win out.

Jack