It’s been nearly a week since the deadly shootings in Colorado and the choruses of gun control are more catchy and widespread than ever. Even so-called lovers of the Second Amendment are demanding crack downs.
Bill O’Reilly, to use his words, is a pinhead. Literally every point he made in this interview (re: interrogation) of Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz was dead wrong.
The gunman didn’t purchase 60,000 rounds of ammunition, he had 6,000. But, the number doesn’t really matter. He could have had 6,000,000 rounds of ammunition and that won’t change the laws of physics and gravity that restrict how much of that ammo he can carry. In the Army, we have billions of rounds of ammunition but we generally only carry approximately 210 rounds (a basic load) on us because that’s all we have room for.
I’d like Mr. O’Reallyignorant to cite even one example of who is purchasing mortars and “howitzers.” In case you have no idea what a Howitzer is, this is what The Factor’s host is saying that people can purchase basically willy-nilly:
I don’t know about you, but these are a staple in every Texas driveway. Of course, maybe I’m being too overly dramatic and O’Reilly was really talking about THESE Howitzers.
Yeah, that’s more like it. At least these you could tow with your Dodge Ram pickup truck (with HEMI!).
Dumbo then goes on to ramble and bully the Congressman with his extreme wit(lessness) about automatic and semi-automatic guns. He even deigns to ask the Chaffetz if he’s ever been to a gun show where these things can be purchased on the open market without any paperwork what-so-ever. I don’t know where Bill goes to gunshows, but when I purchase guns at gun shows (my favorite place to get the best deals), I ALWAYS have to fill out the FBI background form that includes the weapon I’m purchasing and the serial number. And NO ONE sells automatic weapons there. You can’t get them at gun shows.
I’m not going to piecemeal every ignorant comment by O’ReallyStupid. Each time he opened his mouth he spouts idiocy in this clip.
Bill would fit in well with the conspiracy nuts, though. I’ve read everything from stories about James Holmes being a puppet of the CIA to an Obama lapdog using a false flag operation to further gun control agendas. Then there’s this little gem of a video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzcE0V5jVJY
The user that uploaded the video uses cleverly edited video in an attempt to deceive the audience into thinking that the entire length of the footage is dedicated to the Colorado shooting. Notice at the :40 second mark that the footage is edited so that the viewer can’t see the footer of the interview that identifies the station and individual being interviewed.
1. O’Reilly implies all AK’s are heavy weapons and fully automatic. Wrong. The bullet in an AK47 is smaller than a 9mm round.
2. He says ANYONE can just go out and buy any w’big weapon’ like machine guns and grenades. He obviously doesn’t even know what a machine gun is. Machine guns are virtually impossible to buy unless you’re a licensed collector.
3. He feels that buying 60k rounds should put you under FBI surveillance, and should be reported by dealers. That buying any ‘large’ amount should be reported (what is large?). So, by his thinking I should be reported because I deign to purchase cases if ammo for both personal use, competition shooting, and target practice. To get around this if it were to be enforced, consumers would just need to buy ammunition from a myriad of sources at levels not deemed “excessive” by Bill’s brown shirts.
O’Reilly lost me. But, Congressman Chaffetz has gained a fan.
I’ve heard over the past few days from the liberal gun grabbers our founding fathers never envisioned the kinds of weapons we have today. They never thought that “military-style” weapons would be available to normal citizens. Naturally, this ignores the fact that the citizens of the early 18th and 19th centuries also had military-style weapons which enabled them to secure our independence from a tyrannical government. So, what did the founding fathers truly envision with regard to the Second Amendment?
I frequently post quotes from the Federalist Papers from our Founding Fathers. These are perhaps the most reliable source for gaining insight into the frame of mind back then. I’d like to share some with you here.
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. Letter to Peter Carr, 1785.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Letter to George Washington.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. In the draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Federalist Papers No. 46
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. 1790, during House consideration of a militia bill.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Not a Founding Father, but:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” –Cesare Beccaria