1911Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
the latest comment (just heard on the radio) he reiterated his comments that "WHO needs an assault weapon!?" and went on to say that people should contact his show with reasons why they need assault weapons in their community, and "the factor" will come and solve their problem.

The moron still thinks (despite two emails by me alone) that the 94 ban is about machine guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
Call him and tell him your "problem" is defending against a tyranical and unConstitutional government. See if he can fix that.

Be careful how you say this, as it could easily be spun (even though it is a "no spin zone") into an Anti-Gov't, Gun Crazy, Militia-type comment to make you look stupid and backwoods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
It isnt about need. Since Bill doesnt like the idea of paying high income tax like they do in Europe ask him why a rich guy like him "needs" to keep so much of his money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
Yep. Need is the wrong argument. It's not about what people need at all. Nobody needs cars with 300+ horsepower, so should the gov ban them. No. It's about right and wrong.

Just like talking about the number of gun related deaths is irrelevent. It's about what is my right and what isn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
O'rielly is wrong on this issue.

Larry Pratt was on O'rielly and had a chance to set things right but was not prepared I think.

The O'rielly issue is one of education. I find his argument on this issue completely inflammatory.

That and SUV's, same problem.

I still like the way he calls to task libral ideologue's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
492 Posts
Need is not the issue. Rather, we NEED to preserve our second amendment rights.

If our first amendment rights to free speech were subject to the same conditions as the second amendment, we'd have to take a safety course and get permission from the government before we even opened our mouths. :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
mr white said:
I still like the way he calls to task libral ideologue's.
Good call! That's the exact reason why I love his show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,456 Posts
I must admit that I usually enjoy Bill's cutting off the liberal blabbermouths in mid-sentence, even when he's rude about it, but he needs to understand that the Second Amendment is what it is, and isn't what HE thinks it should be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
ssr said:
Yep. Need is the wrong argument. It's not about what people need at all. Nobody needs cars with 300+ horsepower, so should the gov ban them. No. It's about right and wrong.
Actually he is probably for banning those as well. Im on record in the past as saying that Bill Oreilly believes in all the worst authoritarian positions of "conservatism" that I disagree with. Hes already claimed that the people criticizing him for his AWB distortions are "on the far right."

SAWBONES said:
I must admit that I usually enjoy Bill's cutting off the liberal blabbermouths in mid-sentence, even when he's rude about it, but he needs to understand that the Second Amendment is what it is, and isn't what HE thinks it should be.
Many people on this board have the same problem with the 2nd Amendment with just a slightly broader incorrect interpretation with the same type of non present limitations they will into the text. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is a simple statement to understand, and yet all too many gun owners are satisfied with a justice system that allows dangerous offenders to walk the streets bearing arms illegally while reformed or non violent former criminals are stripped of their human rights for life. Prior restraint is prior restraint. A right is a right.

At the risk of repeating myself, we need to get back to basics and timeless logic like that expressed by Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." We know that criminals carry and possess guns anyway regardless of firearms laws. The question is is the harrassment of law abiding people, and the oppression of reformed convicts worth the dubious value of being able to arrest an operating criminal on an additional weapons charge from time to time? The answer, as long as the judicial system were to deal out adequate punishments for crimes committed with weapons, and keep mentally ill persons in a safe environment for them (state run mental hospitals for example), is no.

We need to value real freedom more than illusory security.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Just for the record...

O'Reilly's May 2002 interview in Playboy magazine...


PLAYBOY: Explain your view on gun control.

O'REILLY: Like with abortion, you can't even talk about gun control without people running around the house with their arms in the air doing the samba because they feel so threatened. I agree that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. It's against the Constitution to ban handguns. However there is absolutely no excuse for any human being on the face of the earth to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. We should have mandatory federal sentencing for all crimes committed with a gun.

PLAYBOY: Does the right to bear arms include AK-47s?

O'REILLY: No. The state has a right to ban certain weaponry as unnecessary. You don't have a right to have a bazooka in your house. It's a public-safety hazard. You can't have it, and if you don't like it, tough.


Piss on him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
NY Patriot said:
Just for the record...

O'Reilly's May 2002 interview in Playboy magazine...


However there is absolutely no excuse for any human being on the face of the earth to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. We should have mandatory federal sentencing for all crimes committed with a gun.
So if I don't wear a seatbelt, while carrying a gun...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
what we need is for someone to get on the air on his radio show and actually talk to him about it. its the only way to guarantee that he's even SEEING our emails and letters, and not just his cronies.

the problem as I see it is that he's absolutely convinced that "assault weapons" means "machine guns". Which is entirely understandable... its the liberal meat heads who mislabled the guns in the 94 ban as "assault weapons". Any straight thinking person SHOULD assume that assault weapons are fully automatic.. thus the name.. throw down some suppressing fire so a teammate can assault the enemy position...

Its no excuse that he hasn't researched the topic. However, its important that he be made aware that the AWB has NOTHING to do with real assault weapons. That all guns available to the public are semiautomatic (or slower) and the AWB is about "scary looking" guns.

So... does anyone have a spare few hours to spend on hold in the afternoons? I could give it a try when I'm next doing some web updates (the rest of this week is spent in the lab with customers though)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Here's my letter:

Mr. O’Reilly,

Over the past few years I have been an avid fan of your television show, radio show, and patron of your books. I have also done my part to expand your viewer base by turning my entire family and many friends “on” to your shows.

My admiration for your usual honesty and frankness in issues has led me to be very disappointed to learn your views on “assault weapons” and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. After doing so much to support you as a fan, I challenge you, the “humble correspondent,” to take a few moments to educate yourself on the facts about assault weapons. You owe it to your fans to spread the truth, not rumors and lies.

An assault weapon is one that is designed for assisting in the close-combat phase of an attack. One would surmise that the appropriate tool for this job would be a fully automatic weapon, one that would fire several rounds with the single squeeze of a trigger. Firearms such as the M16 or AK-47 are such weapons you may be familiar with from seeing footage of our troops and enemies in action. There are civilian versions of these rifles that can only fire in a semi-automatic function. That is, one shot per squeeze of the trigger. While civilians have been in possession and continual use of semi-automatic firearms for over a century, they have not been subject to such false ridicule until several models of these semi-automatic firearms took on the aesthetic appearance of fully automatic assault weapons.

Semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 and civilian AK-47 maintain the appearance of their fully automatic counterparts, the M16 and AK-47 respectively. However, these firearms, with their semi-automatic function, are not suited for the same purpose. They are commonly used among civilians as outstanding recreation, hunting, and home defense rifles. Unlike many on the far-left will tell you, these weapons substantiate a remarkable minority in the number of firearms used in crimes.

Bill Clinton’s 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (1994 Crime Bill) did not actually ban fully automatic assault weapons. Those were banned from civilian possession soon after Prohibition in 1934. Instead, Clinton’s ban outlawed semi-automatic firearms with certain combinations of aesthetic features such as pistol grips, muzzle flash hiders, and detachable magazines. This legislation has proven fruitless, as civilians can still purchase AR-15’s and AK-47’s without the banned features, and the ban was recently proven ineffective in preventing crime by a government endorsed impact evaluation.

Mr. O’Reilly, I understand you are a supporter of our right to keep and bear arms; but for what reason? If you support our 2nd Amendment Rights, then how do you not see through the fiction of “assault weapons?” Feel free to respond to these questions.

I encourage you to research this matter further for future debate. There are many resources available from the National Rifle Association and other 2nd Amendment groups to answer your questions. I can only beg you to reintroduce this topic on your television and radio shows; this time with the appropriate guests prepared to discuss the topic, and yourself, armed with the truth.

Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Brew said:
what we need is for someone to get on the air on his radio show and actually talk to him about it. its the only way to guarantee that he's even SEEING our emails and letters, and not just his cronies.

the problem as I see it is that he's absolutely convinced that "assault weapons" means "machine guns". Which is entirely understandable... its the liberal meat heads who mislabled the guns in the 94 ban as "assault weapons". Any straight thinking person SHOULD assume that assault weapons are fully automatic.. thus the name.. throw down some suppressing fire so a teammate can assault the enemy position...

Its no excuse that he hasn't researched the topic. However, its important that he be made aware that the AWB has NOTHING to do with real assault weapons. That all guns available to the public are semiautomatic (or slower) and the AWB is about "scary looking" guns.

So... does anyone have a spare few hours to spend on hold in the afternoons? I could give it a try when I'm next doing some web updates (the rest of this week is spent in the lab with customers though)
Brew, you summed up the appropriate action for us to take. Some people here need to get with reality. This guy has an extremely powerful information outlet. If we can put so much effort into challenging Home Depot and various other companies, why can't we hit O'Reilly with the same kind of blitz? He would be far more useful in alliance with us. So don't just turn off the tv, take action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
Brew, you summed up the appropriate action for us to take. Some people here need to get with reality. This guy has an extremely powerful information outlet. If we can put so much effort into challenging Home Depot and various other companies, why can't we hit O'Reilly with the same kind of blitz? He would be far more useful in alliance with us. So don't just turn off the tv, take action.
Makes good sense. He needs to be converted!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Why would anyone need an assualt weapon?

How about as a deterent to genocide?
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top