Good old Bill O’Reilly must believe his audience is lacking analytical skills altogether. Or maybe it’s just that every talking head lives by one rule: A verbal swift one is more effective than text. Listen to the King of Cable B.S. in last night’s talking points:
Notice how he wrapped the B.S. in the obvious. A lot of what O’Reilly said was fairly innocuous. It was the government’s agenda that causes the harm. Good old Bill sneaked in gun registration and background checks which amounts to six of one and a half dozen of the other. That’s the same crap talking heads say on those liberal networks O’Reilly is always mocking. O’Reilly is worse because his crap reaches conservatives who never watch MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and so on.
And did you get the part about registering guns because automobiles are registered. The last time I looked the Bill of Rights did not have an Amendment protecting the Right to own an unregistered auto —— not to mention the fact that auto owners drive their cars all of the time, while millions and millions of law-abiding gun owners seldom shoot their guns in public.
I’ll give O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt and say that he is well-intentioned. Like all do-gooders, O’Reilly’s good intentions ignore a fact: He does not understand what the hell he is advocating. First off, he cited self-defense without mentioning:
Apparently, O’Reilly does not see danger in a tyrannical global government which is what gun control is all about. Or perhaps he simply believes a global government will be a good thing. Most of the people in the media are paid to believe it anyway.
Question: Does the United Nations Small Arms Treaty not tell O’Reilly why the New World Order crowd must disarm American gun owners?
Answer: It’s obvious they fear the day they have to send UN peacekeepers in to help the federal government put down a rebellion. Facing well-armed Americans can get mighty hairy for UN peacekeepers; more so if a substantial number of military units join the rebellion.
Parenthetically, O’Reilly is an expert on A. Lincoln; so I wonder if he included this in his book:
My point: Don’t take part in a global government and you won’t have to overthrow it.
Finally, O’Reilly puts the knock on the UN from time to time. The problem is that he criticizes the UN for its weakness. I’ve never heard him say the US should withdraw from the UN. He has said that American military personnel should serve the UN if the president orders them to do so.
Notice how he wrapped the B.S. in the obvious. A lot of what O’Reilly said was fairly innocuous. It was the government’s agenda that causes the harm. Good old Bill sneaked in gun registration and background checks which amounts to six of one and a half dozen of the other. That’s the same crap talking heads say on those liberal networks O’Reilly is always mocking. O’Reilly is worse because his crap reaches conservatives who never watch MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and so on.
And did you get the part about registering guns because automobiles are registered. The last time I looked the Bill of Rights did not have an Amendment protecting the Right to own an unregistered auto —— not to mention the fact that auto owners drive their cars all of the time, while millions and millions of law-abiding gun owners seldom shoot their guns in public.
I’ll give O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt and say that he is well-intentioned. Like all do-gooders, O’Reilly’s good intentions ignore a fact: He does not understand what the hell he is advocating. First off, he cited self-defense without mentioning:
Apparently, O’Reilly does not see danger in a tyrannical global government which is what gun control is all about. Or perhaps he simply believes a global government will be a good thing. Most of the people in the media are paid to believe it anyway.
Question: Does the United Nations Small Arms Treaty not tell O’Reilly why the New World Order crowd must disarm American gun owners?
Answer: It’s obvious they fear the day they have to send UN peacekeepers in to help the federal government put down a rebellion. Facing well-armed Americans can get mighty hairy for UN peacekeepers; more so if a substantial number of military units join the rebellion.
Parenthetically, O’Reilly is an expert on A. Lincoln; so I wonder if he included this in his book:
My point: Don’t take part in a global government and you won’t have to overthrow it.
Finally, O’Reilly puts the knock on the UN from time to time. The problem is that he criticizes the UN for its weakness. I’ve never heard him say the US should withdraw from the UN. He has said that American military personnel should serve the UN if the president orders them to do so.
Last edited:
