Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by OLDNEWBIE, Jun 14, 2016.
He makes some good and bad points then says Congress should debate a ban.
This isn't good. He sways a lot of people who would be natural pro 2ndA.
Colbert is a pretty smart guy and he really did just call for suspension of rights based on an investigation that does not lead to arrest. I know he knows the consequence of what he is saying and understands the big picture. And he still said it. Erode one and the others follow.
I think Im going to take a break from all these debates. Too depressing.
Oh, and I dont care what O'Reilly thinks since he does not know how tides work and I learned that in grade school.
Bill O'Reilly is a fgn' tool.
He claims the 2nd but then in the next sentence undermines it.
Screw him. I lost the taste for him about 8 years ago.
Some good points.
We've already covered the AU gun ban though here on these forums. Lowered gun crimes, sure (you have LESS guns so duh), but overall murders? Not so much. They were trending downwards anyway. Armed robberies went UP for several years afterwards, only to normalize back to (you guessed it!) right around the same as the gun ban. Strange that O'Reilly didn't mention this though?
Mandatory Minimums... Oh how I hate these things. Our prison systems are so F'd up because of this from the war on drugs and Tough on Crime era... So. F'd. Up.
Adding more for gun-crime augmentations is something we can talk about. But overburdening the prison system beyond it's extremely broken state as-is is simply not going to work. And Mandatory minimums are already demonstrably a failed idea. Why are we thinking it would magically change now?
^^^ 7:50 To make a point. One of the guys they talk about sold a small amount of pot to undercover feds while he happened to have a gun. What did he get? MINIMUM 55 YEARS(!!!) in prison. NO parole. That's not justice.
I have never liked O'Reilly - now I have a reason to dislike him even more. Selling out American's rights?? What the hell is he thinking?? Everyone is in such a panic mode to push for anti-gun legislation right now - what the hell is he doing on that bandwagon?? He should just go eat a giant turd burger.
Ditto, I have a 65" flat-screen TV and his head barley fits on it because it's gotten so big! The guy oozes ego and self-importance, and from what I've read he's a serious control freak that SERIOUSLY enjoys having his a$$ kissed (and gets cranky when it's not), and he's not very nice @ home either.
It's easy for a multi-millionaire who can afford private armed security and "controlled environments" to call for banning the very thing for "the masses" that they can afford by "proxy".
O'Reilly claims the 2nd amendment is for the militia!!! Has he not read it? It doesn't say the right of the militia to KABA, it says,"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" !!!!!
Bill O'Reilly: It's Too Easy to Get 'High-Powered Weaponry' in America - Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/06/14/bill-oreilly-easy-get-high-powered-weaponry-america/)
Hard to understand how he can get a lot of things so RIGHT but on semi-autos he's LEFT the 2ndA meaning completely. Heard him on his show talk about "a well regulated militia" as an anti-gun Prog would describe it.
That is, Regulated defined as under control of the govt.
Not Regulated like a finely tuned mechanism or clock etc.
He did mention a Militia of the people last time though. He's trying to walk the fence obviously.
O'rielly has been in the bag for gun confiscation ever since the elite let him into their secret club. For well over a decade he's been calling ARs Heavy Weapons, machine guns, weapons of war, even Belt-Fed machine guns. I lost all respect for him, he's no different than Rosie O'donnel. Last night he compared ARs to hand grenades, mortars and rocket launchers.
What was the purpose of Jade Helm again; Dominate the Human Terrain?
Here's yesterday's show where he throws the 2ndA under the bus. It's in the first 5 minutes. 3:29
For those who try to say the 2nd amendment only applies to militias- here is the definition of militia, straight from websters...
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
Part b being the important one. Militia means CITIZENS!
I normally agree with most of what Oreilly says but when it comes to guns he should stay quiet. He has little to no experience with guns and when he does actually talk about them it's quite obvious he is 'grabbing at straws' . Basically a case of where a 'little knowledge is dangerous'
What, some of you guys still believe Faux News is not part of the Ministry of Propaganda?
Militia which is defined as abled bodied MEN from 18-45. Sorry you cripples, women and old farts. You don't get rights anymore.
Point is the definition of 'militia' changes and is controlled.
My crystal ball tells me something will get passed. Might just be banning people on the no fly list, or people that have been investigated for terrorism.
From what I am seeing, there are alot of Repubs signing on so it could pass.
I am hoping that by the time the bills are ready, all the leftist crying will have passed.
The Saudi Prince, The Mosque And Fox News
The Saudi Prince, The Mosque And Fox News
September 1, 20104:00 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
Rupert Murdoch, controlling owner of News Corp., with Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal at the Abu Dhabi Media Summit in March. Waleed holds 7 percent of the voting stock of the media company. Karl Jeffs/Getty Images hide caption
toggle caption Karl Jeffs/Getty Images
Rupert Murdoch, controlling owner of News Corp., with Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal at the Abu Dhabi Media Summit in March. Waleed holds 7 percent of the voting stock of the media company.
Karl Jeffs/Getty Images
The proposed construction of an Islamic center and mosque close to ground zero in New York City has inspired intense scrutiny from news outlets this month — and few have outstripped the Fox News Channel in their interest.
That's especially true on Fox's opinion-driven shows in the morning and evening hours. Familiar figures including Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have repeatedly asked where the money for the center will come from.
Yet the parent company of Fox News shares a financial backer with the imam who is at the center of the firestorm. The second-largest holder of voting stock in News Corp. is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, a nephew of the Saudi king. And through his philanthropies, Waleed has given generously to initiatives pursued by the imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf.
The Saudi Prince, The Mosque And Fox News (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129584557)
While the entire field moves left as most of us stand our ground, we find ourselves by no other mechanism seen as extremists for believing in the same freedoms we always have. Yesterday's conservative constitutionalist will be tomorrows 'terrorist' and arbitrarily put on a list simply for not being a sheep or in compliance with the zeitgeist of relinquishing our freedom for security.
Keep your gunpowder dry, knives sharp, and head on a swivel: welcome to a whole 'nother level of s.n.a.f.u.
I think you're right. Trump is hinting the "list" idea.
What I don't understand is...
FBI has Achmad Saleem whatshisface on a watch list or even Bubba Rebel whatshisface. Then they try to buy a "Powerful Rifle". Why not let them buy the rifle and then watch the crap out of them even more to catch him in the act?
An indefinite watch list or no fly list with no real crime is just the slippery slope towards Orwellian Totalitarianism.