(1).jpg)
(Charles Sykes/Associated Press)
"Even a simple guy such as me can figure out these words from the U.S. Constitution," Bill O'Reilly writes in a July 2 editorial commenting on the recent Supreme Court McDonald decision.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s contained in the Second Amendment. So why did four Supreme Court justices last week vote to infringe on the right to bear arms?
Why indeed?
Still, for O'Reilly to be championing "shall not be infringed" absolutism seems a bit of a disconnect. After all, we're talking about a guy who earlier this year characterized the refusal to obey citizen disarmament orders during declared emergencies as "pretty extreme," even though the true extremism came from authorities asserting a monopoly on violence during emergencies.
And we're talking about a guy who recently used his top-rated cable news program to spread the confusion over U.S. arms and Mexican crime (click here for video), something the gungrabbers are counting on to exploit for further infringements.
But maybe O'Reilly is coming around:
The founders also recognized that armed rebellion was a possibility even after we threw the British out. So they allowed the new American citizens the right to “bear arms” as protection and, indeed, wanted the folks to form “militias” in case of emergency.
So we now should be armed in emergencies? And we can even rebel? How does that square with Oath Keepers refusing orders to disarm citizens being "extreme"? (And as for allowing citizens a right to bear arms, the McDonald decision he was writing about acknowledged a pre-existing right.)
"My opinion on gun control changed drastically when I saw the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina," O'Reilly tells us. "[Y]ou would have been at the mercy of these looters unless you had the firepower to ward them off. That is why all Americans have the right to bear arms."
This is 180 degrees from the position he articulated less than half a year ago, yet the hurricane occurred in 2005. But let's take him at his word and assume he means it now. There's still the following we must come to grips with:
If these liberal jurists really cared about gun control, they would urge Congress to pass a law making all gun crimes federal offenses with mandatory prison sentences of 10 years. That would mean any thug who carried a gun illegally or used one to commit a crime would be facing a 10-year stretch on top of whatever else he or she had done.
"All gun crimes"?
Think about that.
I don't know what good an O'Reilly-acknowledged "right to bear arms" is if someone like Richard Daley can trump that by making it illegal to carry on your own porch, and have such edicts backed by the feds and the threat of "a 10-year stretch."
Sorry, but I'm just not seeing a friend here.
Comments
He still doesn't get it.
o'reilly is like a lot of media people...they are in love with the sound of their voice so much they can't engage their brain...if they have one..
Someone still watches this pinhead?
The "mainstream right" is seeing the mood of the people and are trying to pander to them the way the dems did just to get elected again. That is all, then they will discard the people after they convince you to vote for their side. The two parties are playing ping-pong with the people while still carrying out the same agenda...together. They feign resistance as a show for the people so they will vote for the "opposition" to the tyranny. Then they will continue the tyranny, you will get angry at them, the otherside will "join" your anger at the tuyrants, you will think they are now on your side, you will vote for them, they will continue the tyranny. It is ping pong, it is controlled, both parties are playing you all. They only want to keep the hold on government away from you. There is no diffrence between the parties except when they put on their show.
O'Reilly is hedging his bets after a lot of negative feedback (I know I've written in). I hope he STICKS to this line of thinking.
My Comment to the Columbia Daily Tribune:
Mr. O’Reilly,
Your editorial in the 2 July 10, Columbia Daily Tribune contained the following paragraph:
“If these liberal jurists really cared about gun control, they would urge Congress to pass a law making all gun crimes federal offenses with mandatory prison sentences of 10 years. That would mean any thug who carried a gun illegally or used one to commit a crime would be facing a 10-year stretch on top of whatever else he or she had done. You want bad guys with guns off the streets? That’s the way to do it.”
This suggested solution to “gun crimes” may very well be a case of burning one’s home to get rid of one’s cockroaches. While I agree that the use of any weapon, firearms or otherwise, in the furtherance of the commission of a violent crime should be severely punished, I feel I must point out the fact that thousands of so-called “reasonable regulations” already exist,
end part I
on every level of government (municipal to federal), that serve to infringe upon the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms. There are an almost infinite number of statutes that restrict the keeping and bearing of arms, and due to the recent McDonald opinion there are an equally infinite number of local, state and federal officials busily plotting means to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision with additional “reasonable regulations”.
Until the justices you mentioned as well as others who support the complete abolition of the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, or for any other legal reason, realize that there is a period immediately following the phrase “… Shall not be Infringed”, and understand that the existence of and the reason for that period cannot be debated, the American people will continue to be burdened with “reasonable” but none-the-less oppressive arms regulations.
[W3]
People really need to learn that conservatism is not synonymous with pro-gun.
Hey Dave,
I still like O'Reilly for the most part, but like any big city guy, and particularly New York City big city guys, he's imparting a subconscious personal implication into his words, concerning the law he is proposing.
The subconscious personal implication is his definition of 'gun crime'. He's not on the same page as 'Ole Bayonet' Daley: O'Reilly literally does mean actual criminals using guns during the commission of a crime, rather than someone like Ole Bayonet's version of ANYONE who OWNS a gun is automatically a 'violent criminal engaging in a crime'.
Hey, we all do the same thing over and over again, on various subject: I know, I'm a trained Historian (Modern Russian-Soviet/Modern African) and I've seen my peers (and yes, myself at times) 'naturally inferring' that a given term is accepted by others with the definition I intend.
It doesn't work really well that way, and so honest academics, which I believe O'Reilly is, try to purge it.
Cheers.
I will not defend O'Reilley but if he has changed sides maybe he is still trying to figure out where he is at. Every one starts out as a novice when they try something new and some catch on quicker than others. Maybe he doesn't understand why he is chnaging his attitude but he just knows that he is because what he once believed does not make sense anymore. I am going to sit back and see where it goes.
I'm seeing a statist. No sale.
You are right Buckyj: O`reillty is rude, overbearing, obnoxious to all his guest in any discussion. He is so involved on himself that soon the bricks will crumble.
O'Reilly is very much like a weather vane, he sticks his finger (more likely email) to see which way the winds are a blowing.
Bill sure can blow like the best of them. However, methinks he's a bit too late to the real party.
Or possibly, a useful idiot.
I think the crux of the matter is that O'Reilly is another example of the Limbaugh mantra: not a party leader, just an entertainer. It sounds like his heart is in the right place but his head still hasn't grasped the implications of how some of the "law 'n' order" garbage actually destroys the rights of good people. It's usually unreasonable to expect a dilettante to see the fnords.
O'Reilly is NOT as knowledgeable as he thinks he is! He seems to more frequently pop off without giving adequate thought to his espousals.
He damn sure ain't looking out for me or people like me.
O'Reilly is and has always been a fascist type. I realized that years ago when he advocated a cop "on every corner" until illegal drugs were eliminated and major, draconian hardly describes what he'd do to drug sellers, sentences including death for drug offenses.
So, you are absolutely correct, Bill O'Reilly is no friend of self defense rights advocates and gun owners, in fact, he's no friend of freedom at all.
O'Reilly is also showing that he has no idea what existing gun laws are. Not really that surprising. Many Americans, even those in our legislative, judicial, and law enforcement fields don't either. GCA68 already makes much of what he say he wants a federal crime with a minimum 5 year sentence, but most people are unaware of that because no Justice Department of any administration has ever bothered to enforce it. You would think he would have researched some of this stuff before "bloviating" (one of his favorite words) at length on the subject. So what say you all? Is Mr. O'Reilly a pinhead or a patriot?
News personalities, mayors, presidents etc. are irrelevant. Once a boy becomes a man, he may choose to believe in God... and then may also embrace the concept of "God Given Rights". Any blathering from "God Given Rights" destroying tyrants... especially when such is accompanied with threats of long prison sentences is call to shed blood.
Maybe Beck is finally gettin through to O Reilly??
I distinctly remember him, on two occasions, disparaging the "need" for "assault weapons," by the citizen. The second occasion was my last viewing of his show.
He likes the Constitutional rights that HE believes are 'NEEDED' and thinks he and the other 'SMART' people should determine who gets what and just what, is necessary.
Not being particularly smart, I think we should all have as much freedom, liberties, education and GUNS as possible, for every citizen.
Not being particularly smart, I assume everyone who opposes this, is an enemy of those things because they never seem to do anything, but assault them. Never seem to do anything, to increase them, only control and diminish them.
Mr. O, is no friend of the founders, or the Constitution and certainly not, the second amendment. He wishes to sit in judgment of all others, considering himself a supreme judge of all "needs". Say, like your need for a pistol, in a bad neighborhood, walking home in the dark, at night.
When a weathervane points in the direction you're headed, it means the wind is at your back.
O'Reilly is a bit thick headed on this one. I enjoy his broadcast. But he needs to spend time with Beck at the range to clear the cobwebs out of his head on this score.
He finally got it right. Too bad he spent so much time getting it wrong.
I don't know whether to believe O'Reilly (AKA: "O'Really") is actually capable of learning from his errors ..... or whether he just has few core principles and can do the "populist" thing with gusto... which seems to be part of his arsenal.
He's still head and shoulders above many other TV talking heads -- which, unfortunatly, isn't saying much.
Dave, I don't think O'Reilly is a friend of the Second Amendment, even if he purports to have an epiphany, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
He wants every "gun crime" to be a federal crime. He wants any thug carrying a gun ILLEGALLY (my emphasis), to be charged with a federal offense.
Who defines what is an "illegal gun"? We know what Bloomberg and his mayor buddies think an "Illegal gun" is. I'd hate to think that the definition of an "illegal gun" would be left up to politicians or law enforcement. Trying to define an "illegal gun" opens up a can of worms.
Actually, guns aren't the problem, since the last time I looked, firearms are legal products. The focus must shift to who is allowed or prohibited to keep and bear them.
On a sidebar, i know that many cities and towns in the USA have local ordinances that prohibit firing a weapon while within city limits. Did SCOTUS' ruling in McDonald invalidate these ordinances, or are they going to be challenged in the courts?
O'Reilly is anti-gun. Period. Freeman III has it right on point with his "weather vane" metaphor. Any pro-gun epiphany O'Relly professes is nothing more than low-grade theater to bolster his ratings.
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." - Sir John Harrington (1561 - 1612)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!