Bill O'Reilly its time for gun control

[SlowSpyder]

If people are bullied and kill themselves, how long till we start limiting free speech? Let's restrict all freedoms until we're completely safe.

 

[WelshBloke]

And I was hoping you'd come back with something other than thumb sulking nanny state nuttery. Did you turn in all of your knives like a good little boy?

Well you haven't left me anything to come back at, unless I want to lower myself to your infantile levels of debate.

 

[WelshBloke]

Damn, I could have sworn you were in Germany, oops :'(

Nope. Not that I'd mind a quick visit there.

Might be an idea sooner than later if we vote out and build a yuge wall!

 

[ivwshane]

If people are bullied and kill themselves, how long till we start limiting free speech? Let's restrict all freedoms until we're completely safe.

It will probably start happening when we see an increase in humans trying to marry animals, you know, since gay marriage is now legal.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It will probably start happening when we see an increase in humans trying to marry animals, you know, since gay marriage is now legal.

Animals are not able to be consenting adults. I don't think it is realistic to expect that over LGBT rights. What I said I can actually see happening. It is parallel to the limiting of gun rights. In both examples we are taking cornerstone freedoms our country was built on and saying, "well today is different, we need to limit those freedoms." And just like the whittling away of the 2nd, that'd be a real shame. Trading freedom for big government security.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

There's a clip of him talking about it today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULwmG0PL94c

I think overall it's fair because he's not calling for an AWB or banning of AR-15s. He's talking about a systematic approach. There already are restrictions on automatic weapons, explosives, etc. It certainly does seem like he's pushing some control, but he's not really spelling out exactly what he wants controlled. I can agree that Congress SHOULD debate these issues and come to an agreement about certain controls.

 

[Subyman]

If people are bullied and kill themselves, how long till we start limiting free speech? Let's restrict all freedoms until we're completely safe.

Dunno, how long you thinking?

Lemme start icing that slope for you.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Free speech is already not unlimited. I don't see people protesting to allow for hate speech, libel and slander, etc.

Your 2nd amendment rights are already not unlimited. I don't see people protesting to allow for machine guns, bombs, and nukes open to the public.

I think we as a society in general accept limits provided they're reasonable.

 

[OutHouse]

It really comes down to

NRA wants to sell more guns because money is beautiful, as beautiful as guns. Period.

Dude, if you dont know the NRA does not sell guns, there is no point in reading any of your post.

 

[glenn1]

Free speech is already not unlimited. I don't see people protesting to allow for hate speech, libel and slander, etc.

Your 2nd amendment rights are already not unlimited. I don't see people protesting to allow for machine guns, bombs, and nukes open to the public.

I think we as a society in general accept limits provided they're reasonable.

If your hate speech was being suppressed I would protest to allow it. I'd fight for your right to use libelous or slanderous speech but hopefully you'd be aware of the legal consequences for doing so.

 

[Genx87]

If people are bullied and kill themselves, how long till we start limiting free speech? Let's restrict all freedoms until we're completely safe.

In all reality this push to allow the govt to create secretive lists and ban people from buying guns is also an attack on the 1st amendment. If the govt had anything more than speech the govt would charge them with existing laws of making threats or planning to carry out an attack. Instead the govt wants the ability to put us on lists for what we say or which religious building we attend.

 

[openwheel]

Dude, if you dont know the NRA does not sell guns, there is no point in reading any of your post.

If you don't know NRA are dining with the gun industry, then you are just a mindless tool like my recently acquired CZ Shadow.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So what concession would you make in turn to get this? Would you eliminate the waiting period requirement if someone came up clean when run through NICS? Because otherwise gun owners have every reason to oppose it for some of the same reasons you've opposed Voter ID.

First I can't multiquote on mobile. Second, look at this some good old fashion horse trading. Glenn has figured it out. What we're doing doesn't work, what's suggested isn't a complete fix but I'm sure its part of the puzzle. Now if only our elected folks could do the same since its a major part of their job description. Good work Glenn compromise & overall concurrence is key.

 

[bozack]

I couldn't care less how many guns you own. Why would I? I also don't care if the laws affect you personally and if you can make money, good for you!

It is pretty amusing to watch you try and puff out your chest though so keep doing that if you want, haha.

so basically you're saying that state laws don't matter even if they are currently in place, and the only laws which matter are federal, if you're ever breaking a state law you should try that as an excuse and see where it gets you?

Further even if they implement a federal background check requirement what mechanism will be in place to force individuals to go through the process, especially if their firearms weren't registered in the first place?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Free speech is already not unlimited. I don't see people protesting to allow for hate speech, libel and slander, etc.

Your 2nd amendment rights are already not unlimited. I don't see people protesting to allow for machine guns, bombs, and nukes open to the public.

I think we as a society in general accept limits provided they're reasonable.

I understand rights are not unlimited. I cannot go to Gander Mountain and buy an automatic weapon. I cannot use free speech to start a riot. (though maybe I should be able to?) But my point is more to how much more do we keep whittling away our freedoms in an effort towards a 'safer' society?

I've never gotten a satisfactory answer on this. Second hand smoke kills between 3-4 people for every single person murdered with a gun in this country, and no one give a shit about limiting smoking rights. Why are guns held to a different standard when other freedoms no one care about limiting plainly put more innocent victims' dead bodies in the ground?

 

[ivwshane]

I understand rights are not unlimited. I cannot go to Gander Mountain and buy an automatic weapon. I cannot use free speech to start a riot. (though maybe I should be able to?) But my point is more to how much more do we keep whittling away our freedoms in an effort towards a 'safer' society?

I've never gotten a satisfactory answer on this. Second hand smoke kills between 3-4 people for every single person murdered with a gun in this country, and no one give a shit about limiting smoking rights. Why are guns held to a different standard when other freedoms no one care about limiting plainly put more innocent victims' dead bodies in the ground?

Smoking rights? Maybe its just my state but smoking is pretty heavily restricted.

 

[glenn1]

Smoking rights? Maybe its just my state but smoking is pretty heavily restricted.

Time and place restrictions impact both smokers and shooters, you can't light off either a Camel or a Colt inside a school for example. What we didn't see in the case of smoking however was an attempt to ban a class of products like we're seeing now with firearms; no one was running around saying "we need to limit cigars to only military and police" like we do with AR-15s and other assorted weapons.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Smoking rights? Maybe its just my state but smoking is pretty heavily restricted.

But it is a much bigger killer and no one is talking about a ban or further restriction, and obviously is a bigger killer than guns. What is the restriction for smoking by you, 18+ and outdoors?

The ATF monitors alcohol, tobacco, and firearms (and technically explosives too). Of the three, guns kill the fewest and are by far the most restricted. How much more restriction do we put on the one that kills the least in light of no one caring about the other two bigger killers? Why the double standard?

 

[ivwshane]

Time and place restrictions impact both smokers and shooters, you can't light off either a Camel or a Colt inside a school for example. What we didn't see in the case of smoking however was an attempt to ban a class of products like we're seeing now with firearms; no one was running around saying "we need to limit cigars to only military and police" like we do with AR-15s and other assorted weapons.

We do indeed have restrictions on who can and cannot buy cigarettes. The claim was that no one gives a shit about cigarettes because there are no limits on them and that is false. You are attempting to move the goal post.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

But it is a much bigger killer and no one is talking about a ban or further restriction, and obviously is a bigger killer than guns. What is the restriction for smoking by you, 18+ and outdoors?

The ATF monitors alcohol, tobacco, and firearms (and technically explosives too). Of the three, guns kill the fewest and are by far the most restricted. How much more restriction do we put on the one that kills the least in light of no one caring about the other two bigger killers? Why the double standard?

Smoking has had several restrictions put on it in many states. Increased taxes, more increased taxes, more increased taxes, no smoking in Federal buildings, 21 to purchase (CA?), restrictions on cigarettes in the military, no smoking in public parks.
I'm good with a tax on guns. Set it around 70% like it is on cigarettes. Make health insurance cost close to double if there is a gun in the house, allow employers not to hire a gun owner due to health care costs, have the government make bulk sales across state lines illegal, make their resale illegal.

 

[glenn1]

We do indeed have restrictions on who can and cannot buy cigarettes. The claim was that no one gives a shit about cigarettes because there are no limits on them and that is false. You are attempting to move the goal post.

Besides being 18 years of age to buy tobacco, what restrictions are there? And the age limit is common to firearms also.

 

[ivwshane]

But it is a much bigger killer and no one is talking about a ban or further restriction, and obviously is a bigger killer than guns. What is the restriction for smoking by you, 18+ and outdoors?

The ATF monitors alcohol, tobacco, and firearms (and technically explosives too). Of the three, guns kill the fewest and are by far the most restricted. How much more restriction do we put on the one that kills the least in light of no one caring about the other two bigger killers? Why the double standard?

You keep saying it but it simply isn't true.

 

[ivwshane]

Besides being 18 years of age to buy tobacco, what restrictions are there? And the age limit is common to firearms also.

Reading comprehension, do you have it?

 

[feralkid]

The Warthog gun weighs 600+ pounds and is 20 feet long. If you have the ability to use that as your carry weapon whether open or concealed and use it to massacre a bunch of people in a nightclub then I'm sorry but I don't think a background check would do much.

The point was that you lumped Gatling Guns in with weapons you described as "4 wars behind in technology" which was rather ignorant to say.




Originally Posted by glenn1
Bazookas, Sherman tanks, and hand grenades aren't guns. He's also about 4 wars behind in technology, I'm surprised he didn't include Gatling guns on his list.

 

[glenn1]

Reading comprehension, do you have it?

Quoting you: "We do indeed have restrictions on who can and cannot buy cigarettes."

I named the only restriction I can think of regarding who can and cannot buy cigarettes. If you can think of any besides age or maybe being a prisoner then have at.