Bill O'Reilly wants gun control

[westwall]

Proving yet again that he is a progressive Bill, on the Colbert show, advocated for the banning of all "assault guns". I have never liked the prick, and now I truly despise him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

However unwarranted and ill-advised, the fact remains that this sort of ‘ban’ is perfectly Constitutional.

That may change at some point in the future with a Supreme Court decision, but to advocate for such a ban is not to seek to ‘violate’ citizens’ rights. ‘take’ from citizens their liberty, or ‘increase’ government authority.

A new ‘AWB’ is unwise and unwarranted because it won’t work; less than two percent of violent crimes are committed with a long gun, and the percentage of violent crimes committed with an AR or AK platform rifle is likely much smaller.

But the notion that this has anything to do with ‘progressives’ is ignorant, partisan, and wrong.

 

[aris2chat]

Proving yet again that he is a progressive Bill, on the Colbert show, advocated for the banning of all "assault guns". I have never liked the prick, and now I truly despise him.

right to bare flintlock for hunting and defense. swords, knives, hatchets.......
does not say assault rifles. we don't need tanks in the front yard either.
didn't have M-16s in the civil war

states can control types of gun and require background checks but there is no reason for a home owner to have grenade launcher or carry a .50 caliber
Don't need a bazooka to hunt deer

 

[DarkFury]

Proving yet again that he is a progressive Bill, on the Colbert show, advocated for the banning of all "assault guns". I have never liked the prick, and now I truly despise him.

right to bare flintlock for hunting and defense. swords, knives, hatchets.......
does not say assault rifles. we don't need tanks in the front yard either.
didn't have M-16s in the civil war

states can control types of gun and require background checks but there is no reason for a home owner to have grenade launcher or carry a .50 caliber
Don't need a bazooka to hunt deer

The majority of Flintlocks WERE 50 cal. I hunted with one.

 

[emilynghiem]

Proving yet again that he is a progressive Bill, on the Colbert show, advocated for the banning of all "assault guns". I have never liked the prick, and now I truly despise him.

Dear westwall
I think that is moving in the opposite direction.

Why not ban the people who would abuse guns. Change citizenship laws that if you are convicted of abusing weapons to commit violent crimes of rape, robbery, assault or murder, you get deported (for life for capital crimes). And trade places with a law abiding immigrant on the waiting list who WANTS to work for an honest living in America.
And would LOVE to have your citizenship if you don't respect the laws. While convicts are sent to work in Mexican prison or sweatshop to pay off restitution to victims and society.

Do you think Trump would go for that?

(For Bill O'Reilly he is selling out too cheaply.
He should strike a deal to trade off banning guns with banning abortions.
And try to use that as leverage, since Democrats will sell out their own.)

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Proving yet again that he is a progressive Bill, on the Colbert show, advocated for the banning of all "assault guns". I have never liked the prick, and now I truly despise him.

right to bare flintlock for hunting and defense. swords, knives, hatchets.......
does not say assault rifles. we don't need tanks in the front yard either.
didn't have M-16s in the civil war

states can control types of gun and require background checks but there is no reason for a home owner to have grenade launcher or carry a .50 caliber
Don't need a bazooka to hunt deer

Its says arms and doesn't mention a ban on any type of firearm so you are completely wrong. This has been said to many times but people like yourself will not listen. If we follow the framers of the Constitutions intent the right to bear arms is more to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government and foreign invaders. With that in mind those who would fight tyranny need the same weapons as those they would defend themselves against. Unless you want to be like every other Liberal and just wipe your ass with the Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Proving yet again that he is a progressive Bill, on the Colbert show, advocated for the banning of all "assault guns". I have never liked the prick, and now I truly despise him.

right to bare flintlock for hunting and defense. swords, knives, hatchets.......
does not say assault rifles. we don't need tanks in the front yard either.
didn't have M-16s in the civil war

states can control types of gun and require background checks but there is no reason for a home owner to have grenade launcher or carry a .50 caliber
Don't need a bazooka to hunt deer

Its says arms and doesn't mention a ban on any type of firearm so you are completely wrong. This has been said to many times but people like yourself will not listen. If we follow the framers of the Constitutions intent the right to bear arms is more to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government and foreign invaders. With that in mind those who would fight tyranny need the same weapons as those they would defend themselves against. Unless you want to be like every other Liberal and just wipe your ass with the Constitution.

Dear ThunderKiss1965
I think we need a bipartisan agreement on how to interpret the 2nd Amendment
instead of fighting over or threatening to change it.

Can we agree that "right of the people" means "right of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"
or do we need to spell that out? Can we all agree it is not for criminals to abuse?

Can we agree the purpose of bearing arms is to defend the law not violate it?
Hunting is good target practice, so if you are going to teach young people and adults
gun safety and responsibility, that is a traditional way for parents to mentor their children.

The Second Amendment cannot be exercised "out of context" with the REST of the
Bill of Rights and Constitution, where it is abused to violate other rights or laws.
So it is still checked by the right to "due process of laws" and the right of people peaceably to
assemble in public or the security of their own homes; none of that can be breached
by abusing guns and the right to bear arms which is within the same Bill of Rights.

Can we agree on this or does THAT need to be spelled out in writing?
(For Democrats, I am guessing we do need something more official to agree to follow
the same laws that everyone else is reading!)

I would no more recommend altering the Constitution than I would changing the Bible.
These are laws considered given by God, so if you want any changes, that would
require a consensus to unite in agreement on the level of establishing the word of God.

What I think we need is agreement on interpretation, without changing the actual laws.
Maybe a clarification or a resolution passed on how this is to be interpreted or not.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Proving yet again that he is a progressive Bill, on the Colbert show, advocated for the banning of all "assault guns". I have never liked the prick, and now I truly despise him.

right to bare flintlock for hunting and defense. swords, knives, hatchets.......
does not say assault rifles. we don't need tanks in the front yard either.
didn't have M-16s in the civil war

states can control types of gun and require background checks but there is no reason for a home owner to have grenade launcher or carry a .50 caliber
Don't need a bazooka to hunt deer

Its says arms and doesn't mention a ban on any type of firearm so you are completely wrong. This has been said to many times but people like yourself will not listen. If we follow the framers of the Constitutions intent the right to bear arms is more to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government and foreign invaders. With that in mind those who would fight tyranny need the same weapons as those they would defend themselves against. Unless you want to be like every other Liberal and just wipe your ass with the Constitution.

Dear ThunderKiss1965
I think we need a bipartisan agreement on how to interpret the 2nd Amendment
instead of fighting over or threatening to change it.

Can we agree that "right of the people" means "right of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"
or do we need to spell that out? Can we all agree it is not for criminals to abuse?

Can we agree the purpose of bearing arms is to defend the law not violate it?
Hunting is good target practice, so if you are going to teach young people and adults
gun safety and responsibility, that is a traditional way for parents to mentor their children.

The Second Amendment cannot be exercised "out of context" with the REST of the
Bill of Rights and Constitution, where it is abused to violate other rights or laws.
So it is still checked by the right to "due process of laws" and the right of people peaceably to
assemble in public or the security of their own homes; none of that can be breached
by abusing guns and the right to bear arms which is within the same Bill of Rights.

Can we agree on this or does THAT need to be spelled out in writing?
(For Democrats, I am guessing we do need something more official to agree to follow
the same laws that everyone else is reading!)

I would no more recommend altering the Constitution than I would changing the Bible.
These are laws considered given by God, so if you want any changes, that would
require a consensus to unite in agreement on the level of establishing the word of God.

What I think we need is agreement on interpretation, without changing the actual laws.
Maybe a clarification or a resolution passed on how this is to be interpreted or not.

Due process handles this.

 

[eflatminor]

Just look at how France's gun bans worked to stop terrorists in Paris. Worked beautifully there...

Tell you want Billy boy, when you come up with a law that bad guys will actually follow, you let us know.