Bill O'Reilly its time for gun control

[Fanatical Meat]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-oreilly-takes-stunning-stance-154449244.html

There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get," he said. "That's the fact. So let's deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don't have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades

 

[glenn1]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-oreilly-takes-stunning-stance-154449244.html

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.

 

[cbrunny]

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.

So what? He is still right.

 

[Genx87]

I saw this the other night and started laughing. Typical conservative. Once Muslims and immigrants get their hands on AR-15s it is time to start banning them. I guarantee you if this guy wasnt a gay muslim but instead a white guy from middle murrica. Ole Bill would be talking about how ineffective gun bans and expanded background checks are and how we cant trample the 2nd amendment for white murrica.

 

[Meghan54]

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.

Well, since you obviously aren't going to read the article but instead comment only on the portion quoted by the OP from said article, here's more of what the article quotes O'Reilly as saying, just after the OP's quote:

"That's because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals," he continued. "They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale. And the states, the individual states, should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their own people."


O'Reilly said new laws were "definitely needed" in the face of new terrorist threats and mass murders.


"The FBI and other federal agencies need the power to stop suspected terrorists or other evildoers from buying weapons," he said. "That law needs to be very precise."


"Also, gun dealers all across America should be required to report the sale of certain kinds of guns, heavy weapons, directly to the FBI," he continued. "Not handguns, not talking about that, but other weapons that would be defined by Congress. That is a sane approach and would make it a lot tougher for the Omar Mateens of the world to get the weaponry to kill."

Seems to me O'Reilly is talking much more than tanks, bazookas, and grenades.

 

[glenn1]

Well, since you obviously aren't going to read the article but instead comment only on the portion quoted by the OP from said article, here's more of what the article quotes O'Reilly as saying, just after the OP's quote:




Seems to me O'Reilly is talking much more than tanks, bazookas, and grenades.

Pretty much everything on his list is already being done. Congress has spent nearly a century discussing what weapons to restrict and doing so repeatedly. States do already decide carry laws for themselves, with the limitation that "never" isn't an allowed answer (similar to abortion). Gun sellers already do report sales transactions. Nothing he suggested is net new except for the extra "due diligence" on Muslim customers that I disagree with because it's bigoted and stupid.

 

[LegendKiller]

Well, since you obviously aren't going to read the article but instead comment only on the portion quoted by the OP from said article, here's more of what the article quotes O'Reilly as saying, just after the OP's quote:




Seems to me O'Reilly is talking much more than tanks, bazookas, and grenades.

O Reilly is being a moron. Well regulated doesn't mean regulated by the government. Usage of that phrase during that period and for the next 100 years meant a self determined orderly process.

To think the founding fathers who just overthrew an authoritarian centralized government wanted to put all arms in control of a centralized authoritarian government is fucking moronic.

And the term arms has been established for 200 years since. This is established case law that means arms commonly used.

Furthermore, ships and artillery were held in private hands during the revolutionary war.

Finally, an ar15 is no more dangerous than a handgun, as VA tech showed.

This whole thing us fucking ridiculous.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I saw this the other night and started laughing. Typical conservative. Once Muslims and immigrants get their hands on AR-15s it is time to start banning them. I guarantee you if this guy wasnt a gay muslim but instead a white guy from middle murrica. Ole Bill would be talking about how ineffective gun bans and expanded background checks are and how we cant trample the 2nd amendment for white murrica.

Kind of thought the same thing. Like it just clicked with him that the 2nd amendment covers Muslim Americans too, not just conservative 'muricans. Once he realized what that meant it was time for bigger government control to save us from ourselves.

 

[Artdeco]

So much BS, the FBI is aware of every new gun transaction, as their database runs every background check.

The director of the FBI is concerned that if a watch listed person is denied a gun purchase, it'll be a tip off they're being watched. I'd like to see the FBI noticed of red flagged individuals purchasing guns and follow up on it, but knowing them, they're afraid the SJW's will say it's racial profiling.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-it-was-so-easy-for-the-orlando-killer-omar-mateen-to-get-his-guns/ (Last sentence in the article)

The no fly list is some star chamber crap too, you can't find out why you're on the list, and to get off of it, you have to guess why you're on it.

I got a call a year ago about a Glock I sold legally 15 years ago found in some random DUI's car when he was arrested. At the time I'd purchased the Glock, the rhetoric was they were vesting owners, not tracking guns. I asked the officer how they found me, he said by the serial number.

 

[Genx87]

Kind of thought the same thing. Like it just clicked with him that the 2nd amendment covers Muslim Americans too, not just conservative 'muricans. Once he realized what that meant it was time for bigger government control to save us from ourselves.

No surprise. If you look through the history of gun control in this country. It has mostly been about denying marginalized groups from owning them. Mostly blacks in the past. But this countrys demographics are changing. And so the list of groups these people want to enact gun control on has also grown.

 

[glenn1]

So much BS, the FBI is aware of every transaction, as their database runs every background check.

I got a call a year ago about a Glock I sold legally 15 years ago found in some random DUI's car when he was arrested. At the time I'd purchased the Glock, the rhetoric was they were vesting owners, not tracking guns. I asked the officer how they found me, he said by the serial number.

So netting out the things already being done, the proper thread title should be "Bill O'Reilly it's time for increased Muslim control". Which isn't news when considering the source of the statement. Hopefully our progressive friends would be better than to supported bigoted behavior against a minority segment of population based on their desire to tightened gun control.

Every measure being proposed was used for the Orlando shooter and still failed from stopping the massacre. He passed the background checks to purchase the weapons. The FBI did investigate him, more than once. Unless you're willing to allow for wholesale violation of multiple kinds of rights for law-abiding people to catch the 1 in (insert large number here) who would actually carry out an atrocity, then you need to accept that in a free society that evil, insane, and psychopathic people are going to do some really fucked up shit to hurt people and there is almost nothing you can do to prevent it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So much BS, the FBI is aware of every transaction, as their database runs every background check.

The only thing they don't capture is personal gun sales. When I have sold a gun I require the purchaser to sign a form stating they aren't prevented to purchase the gun in any state or by the federal government. I haven't sold a gun in the last 10 years and doubt I will sell any of the guns I currently have unless it's to a FFL dealer.

 

[Genx87]

So netting out the things already being done, the proper thread title should be "Bill O'Reilly it's time for increased Muslim control". Which isn't news when considering the source of the statement. Hopefully our progressive friends would be better than to supported bigoted behavior against a minority segment of population based on their desire to tightened gun control.

Every measure being proposed was used for the Orlando shooter and still failed from stopping the massacre. He passed the background checks to purchase the weapons. The FBI did investigate him, more than once. Unless you're willing to allow for wholesale violation of multiple kinds of rights for law-abiding people to catch the 1 in (insert large number here) who would actually carry out an atrocity, then you need to accept that in a free society that evil, insane, and psychopathic people are going to do some really fucked up shit to hurt people and there is almost nothing you can do to prevent it.

This horrible incident is the epitomy of what gun control people have proposed and it failed miserably. That is a major part of the story that is barely being talked about. Interviewed twice by the FBI, passed extensive background checks due to his position, still bought guns and mowed people down.

So what is their answer? To filibuster the senate so they can pass the ability to deny constitutional rights based on secretive govt lists. Nice! This proposed law also affects the 1st amendment along with the 5th. This is the democrat party in 2016. 4 months before a possible Trump administration they are ramping up the ability of govt to crush our rights.

 

[PokerGuy]

I guess O'Reilly is trying to do his part to show that stupidity is by no means limited to the left......

 

[Sonikku]

Even Reagan while supporting gun rights still thought things like assault rifles were excessive and overkill for protecting your home.

 

[soundforbjt]

This horrible incident is the epitomy of what gun control people have proposed and it failed miserably. That is a major part of the story that is barely being talked about. Interviewed twice by the FBI, passed extensive background checks due to his position, still bought guns and mowed people down.

So what is their answer? To filibuster the senate so they can pass the ability to deny constitutional rights based on secretive govt lists. Nice! This proposed law also affects the 1st amendment along with the 5th. This is the democrat party in 2016. 4 months before a possible Trump administration they are ramping up the ability of govt to crush our rights.

The leader of the republican party is meeting with the NRA to try to ban those on the no-fly list from purchasing guns. Are you sure it's only the dems?

 

[Artdeco]

Even Reagan while supporting gun rights still thought things like assault rifles were excessive and overkill for protecting your home.

Reagan damn near died after being shot with a 22 caliber revolver, I can understand his aversion to guns.

 

[DigDog]

i'm surprised .. puzzled as to why he was on Colbert twice in a month; he's the devil according to the left.

re: gun control ..

my home country has some very, very strict gun laws; you can't have guns.
guess what? we have guns. we have police guns, security guard guns, hunter guns, range guns, home defense guns, we even manufacture guns, which we then sell to you.
Austria makes guns; France makes guns, Italians make guns, the UK makes bombs.

we have guns AND we have gun control. i'm a citizen with no risks associated with my job, i have no valuables to defend, an not a target of assassinations, and i do not hunt - i'm not getting a gun. The laws will simply not permit me to have a dangerous object which i have no reason to own.

Nobody wants to take rifles away from people who bag deer and elk, they want to take guns away from people who do not have a reason to own one. You are already doing it for dangerous chemicals, restricted substances, and generally everything which can cause massive harm, why not guns?

re: second amendment
there's so much wrong with the interpretation of this, i'm shocked nobody brought it up.
first off, a single individual is not a militia. the swiss have a militia, they all own guns for the purpose of defending their state - do something similar, but don't claim this gives you the right to arm yourself independently.

also, so many times it has been argued that it was meant to give a means to the people to defend their freedom should the government become too invasive.

ok;

when are you gonna start shooting?

when are you gonna start killing this government? because it's already well beyond invasive, from income taxing to the draft, forcing your kids to take evil vaccinations, telling you who you can and cannot marry ...surveillance, drone strikes, forced removals without trial, suspension of law, police brutality, corruption ..

maybe because you can't? or maybe because, too, you cannot have a modern country without a proper government.

the constitution is obsolete; you need to face the reality of being a country.
welcome to the club of "countries who have not just been founded".

 

[glenn1]

The leader of the republican party is meeting with the NRA to try to ban those on the no-fly list from purchasing guns. Are you sure it's only the dems?

I wouldn't personally use the no-fly list to restrict people from buying even a pack of chewing gum since it's accuracy is extremely questionable. It's not transparent who is on the list or why, or is there a clear, standardized, transparent means of due process for contesting your name being on the list and getting it removed. Honestly I'd say using the list to ban people on it from buying guns is worse than doing nothing since it would give a false sense of security; you'd almost be better off using a random number generator to arbitrarily decide who to restrict the rights of.

 

[Strk]

So much BS, the FBI is aware of every transaction, as their database runs every background check.

The director of the FBI is concerned that if a watch listed person is denied a gun purchase, it'll be a tip off they're being watched. I'd like to see the FBI noticed of red flagged individuals purchasing guns and follow up on it, but knowing them, they're afraid the SJW's will say it's racial profiling.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-it-was-so-easy-for-the-orlando-killer-omar-mateen-to-get-his-guns/ (Last sentence in the article)

The no fly list is some star chamber crap too, you can't find out why you're on the list, and to get off of it, you have to guess why you're on it.

I got a call a year ago about a Glock I sold legally 15 years ago found in some random DUI's car when he was arrested. At the time I'd purchased the Glock, the rhetoric was they were vesting owners, not tracking guns. I asked the officer how they found me, he said by the serial number.

Isn't the background check kind of crappy though (underfunded, understaffed and slow)? I believe one of Obama's executive orders was to try and address that since that allowed the killer in South Carolina to get a gun even though he was supposed to fail the background check.

 

[Artdeco]

i'm surprised .. puzzled as to why he was on Colbert twice in a month; he's the devil according to the left.

re: gun control ..

my home country has some very, very strict gun laws; you can't have guns.
guess what? we have guns. we have police guns, security guard guns, hunter guns, range guns, home defense guns, we even manufacture guns, which we then sell to you.
Austria makes guns; France makes guns, Italians make guns, the UK makes bombs.

we have guns AND we have gun control. i'm a citizen with no risks associated with my job, i have no valuables to defend, an not a target of assassinations, and i do not hunt - i'm not getting a gun. The laws will simply not permit me to have a dangerous object which i have no reason to own.

Nobody wants to take rifles away from people who bag deer and elk, they want to take guns away from people who do not have a reason to own one. You are already doing it for dangerous chemicals, restricted substances, and generally everything which can cause massive harm, why not guns?

re: second amendment
there's so much wrong with the interpretation of this, i'm shocked nobody brought it up.
first off, a single individual is not a militia. the swiss have a militia, they all own guns for the purpose of defending their state - do something similar, but don't claim this gives you the right to arm yourself independently.

also, so many times it has been argued that it was meant to give a means to the people to defend their freedom should the government become too invasive.

ok;

when are you gonna start shooting?

when are you gonna start killing this government? because it's already well beyond invasive, from income taxing to the draft, forcing your kids to take evil vaccinations, telling you who you can and cannot marry ...surveillance, drone strikes, forced removals without trial, suspension of law, police brutality, corruption ..

maybe because you can't? or maybe because, too, you cannot have a modern country without a proper government.

the constitution is obsolete; you need to face the reality of being a country.
welcome to the club of "countries who have not just been founded".

You literally can't imagine the bloodshed if guns are confiscated in this country, there's a ton of people that will resist, we already have stupid gun laws that are quite literally uninforceable.

From the last AWB:

 

[JockoJohnson]

The leader of the republican party is meeting with the NRA to try to ban those on the no-fly list from purchasing guns. Are you sure it's only the dems?

Paul Ryan wants to use the no-fly list to ban people from buying guns? Link please. From what I read, Paul Ryan thinks it is silly to use the no-fly list.

 

[LegendKiller]

i'm surprised .. puzzled as to why he was on Colbert twice in a month; he's the devil according to the left.

re: gun control ..

my home country has some very, very strict gun laws; you can't have guns.
guess what? we have guns. we have police guns, security guard guns, hunter guns, range guns, home defense guns, we even manufacture guns, which we then sell to you.
Austria makes guns; France makes guns, Italians make guns, the UK makes bombs.

we have guns AND we have gun control. i'm a citizen with no risks associated with my job, i have no valuables to defend, an not a target of assassinations, and i do not hunt - i'm not getting a gun. The laws will simply not permit me to have a dangerous object which i have no reason to own.

Nobody wants to take rifles away from people who bag deer and elk, they want to take guns away from people who do not have a reason to own one. You are already doing it for dangerous chemicals, restricted substances, and generally everything which can cause massive harm, why not guns?

re: second amendment
there's so much wrong with the interpretation of this, i'm shocked nobody brought it up.
first off, a single individual is not a militia. the swiss have a militia, they all own guns for the purpose of defending their state - do something similar, but don't claim this gives you the right to arm yourself independently.

also, so many times it has been argued that it was meant to give a means to the people to defend their freedom should the government become too invasive.

ok;

when are you gonna start shooting?

when are you gonna start killing this government? because it's already well beyond invasive, from income taxing to the draft, forcing your kids to take evil vaccinations, telling you who you can and cannot marry ...surveillance, drone strikes, forced removals without trial, suspension of law, police brutality, corruption ..

maybe because you can't? or maybe because, too, you cannot have a modern country without a proper government.

the constitution is obsolete; you need to face the reality of being a country.
welcome to the club of "countries who have not just been founded".

There is nothing wrong with the interpretation of the 2nd. At the time it was created practically every person in the country owned a gun. That was the only way they could form a militia. There weren't prolific arms dealers.

Do you really think the country that depended on civilian ownership of firearms for independence would advocate any less than that in the future?

Furthermore, the constitution restricts the government, not the people. It tells the government what it can or cannot do. That is why there was such a debate about even the need to have a bill of rights, because my believed any definition of rights would cause future generation to restrict rights only those enumerated in the BoR. This was Jefferson (and others) huge problems. All rights are naturally imbued, so why define them?

 

[LegendKiller]

You literally can't imagine the bloodshed if guns are confiscated in this country, there's a ton of people that will resist, we already have stupid gun laws that are quite literally uninforceable.

From the last AWB:

And there is the problem people font understand. The awb wouldn't have prevented this. The ar15 pretty much in its current form was always available.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't the background check kind of crappy though (underfunded, understaffed and slow)? I believe one of Obama's executive orders was to try and address that since that allowed the killer in South Carolina to get a gun even though he was supposed to fail the background check.

The FBI is most certainly not aware of every gun sale that happens or anything even remotely close to it. Background checks are only done on sales that come from dealers; private sales are conducted with no checks whatsoever. After Sandy Hook there was a push for universal background checks that had overwhelming public support but the NRA killed it.