Bill OReilly is one stupid jerk
I just heard him cut a guy off on his radio show. The guy was talking about the Police confiscating firearms from citizens during Katrina, and O'Reilly cut him off and told him it didn't happen, and to get his facts straight. Wow is this guy a jerk or what?[:(!]
Trinity +++
Trinity +++
0
-
Well, as a Second Amendment supporter..that being NO FEDERAL GUN LAWS AT ALL...and damned few state laws...I am well used to being vilified by those that pretend to be 'pro-gun'....PLUS the stridently, HONEST gun haters...
But...see..it rolls off my back like a basketball would. See...I stand by the Founders...not the sqishy 'supporter' we have running rampant today...0 -
Whose villyfying you Highball? 0 -
I listened to O'Reilly some today. I have always thought he was pretty decent until today (Wed). He commented that on Tuesday, someone asked him to view the video on the NRA website where the NOPD took the gun from that little old lady. He apparently said he would (and did) and then commented today that what he saw was a deranged old lady waving a gun around and the police rightfully took it away from her.
It has been quite a while since I viewed the video but if I recall correctly, the lady told the police that she was fine and didn't need their help. She commented that she had food, water and a gun to defend herself. It was only after the police asked her to show them the gun that she produced it, and for her cooperation, she was forcefully shoved around and illegally relieved of her gun.
Now I worked in LE for 20 years and I was outraged at what I saw. Those police were there against her will when she had committed no crime and then took her gun (and her) and removed them from her house.
I see at least 2 violations of the bill of rights that were violated. The 4th (free from unreasonable searches) and although there is generally an exception for an emergency (recognized by the courts) but that usually has to do with an emergency that is occurring INSIDE the home, and a violation of the 2nd, which we are all aware of here. It IS frustrating to be a police officer and trying to help people when they don't want your help even when it is in their own best interest but that is exactly what a free society allows. If I recall the the video correctly, the lady told the police that she did not need them there (which is evidence that the search was illegal) and then the police asked her to show them the gun (which she did and it was then seized illegally) as well as she was taken from her home against her will when she had committed no crime which could be a false arrest (or possibly even a kidnapping, but that might be a stretch). I was embarrassed of my profession when I viewed that video, but I also know of the frustrations that come from working when overly-tired and fatigued.
What makes this twice as bad is after the mistake was made (and yes, the police are human and make mistakes) the real crime was that the mayor continues to hold the guns were were seized illegally in spite of a court order to return them. If I were that judge, I would have the mayor and the police chief (that made the illegal order to take the guns from the people in the first place) ordered to be held and jailed and ordered to remain there until every gun was returned to the proper owner.
If the lady wishes to sue the police in a civil suit, that police chief and mayor would not want to have me on that jury because from what I saw in the video, this case would be a slam-dunk for the little old lady. I would vote to reward her nicely for all her trouble.
Once again, just my thoughts....0 -
Gunfunco,
+1 I fully agree sir.
Trinity +++0 -
quote:Originally posted by GUNFUNCO
I listened to O'Reilly some today. I have always thought he was pretty decent until today (Wed). He commented that on Tuesday, someone asked him to view the video on the NRA website where the NOPD took the gun from that little old lady. He apparently said he would (and did) and then commented today that what he saw was a deranged old lady waving a gun around and the police rightfully took it away from her.
It has been quite a while since I viewed the video but if I recall correctly, the lady told the police that she was fine and didn't need their help. She commented that she had food, water and a gun to defend herself. It was only after the police asked her to show them the gun that she produced it, and for her cooperation, she was forcefully shoved around and illegally relieved of her gun.
Now I worked in LE for 20 years and I was outraged at what I saw. Those police were there against her will when she had committed no crime and then took her gun (and her) and removed them from her house.
GUNFUNCO - From one "professional" to another, let me first say "Thank you" for what you do.
You are correct in what you thought happened in the video. I had never heard of this story until today. How sad that the media can control us that much! And, I TRY to be informed. Imagine all of those who just sit out there and wait for the media to feed them their daily ration of sh#$. How sad!
It is nice to hear a LE officer say that he saw a major violation. Yes, it is always easier for others to sit back after the fact and say "you should have" or "you needed to", but in the moment those options are not available. But, clearly, in the case of New Orleans and the gun confiscation, and specifically the old woman, the cops were wrong beyond ANY reasoning!
What the NOPD chief did was wrong, and standing by it, after TWO Federal judgments is even more wrong! I agree that both he and the mayor should be arrested and charged, though we both know that will never happen.
Anyway, all of this rambling was to simply to agree with your thoughts and liked your level-headed common sense explanation about the situation!
ABOUT "O'RIELLY": The jury is still out on what I think of him. I like some of what he says, and he is very thought provoking on some issues. From what little I do know of him, and have watched, he seems to be a bit more on the conservative side than the likes of CNN and their yahoos spouting their liberal rhetoric, but I don't know... After reading this stuff about his talk show; and what he later said on his tv show, even with the NRA person present, doesn't make him a "hero" in my book.
I honestly believe the reality is fellas, we got NO true friends in the media when it comes to Guns and Freedom! And, it will only get worse with time...
SO, keep 'em clean and the powder dry!0 -
quote:Originally posted by pabooger
That is not what he said. He in fact admitted that this happened tonight on his TV show, and that he is supported of sensible gun laws, but does not support banning our second amendment rights. He said and I quote, if you think for one minute that the Federal Government is going to protect you, you are wrong,citizens have the right to own firearms to protect themselves!!!
Thanks "PA" that clears up a lot, in my opinion.
O'Reilly is a supporter of gun rights the majority of the time. He does have a big ego and sometimes gets off track! But he stands with us to protect the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, as does the NRA![:0][:0]0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
quote:Originally posted by pabooger
That is not what he said. He in fact admitted that this happened tonight on his TV show, and that he is supported of sensible gun laws, but does not support banning our second amendment rights. He said and I quote, if you think for one minute that the Federal Government is going to protect you, you are wrong,citizens have the right to own firearms to protect themselves!!!
Thanks "PA" that clears up a lot, in my opinion.
O'Reilly is a supporter of gun rights the majority of the time. He does have a big ego and sometimes gets off track! But he stands with us to protect the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, as does the NRA![:0][:0]
If you only support gun-rights "the majority of the time", then you are NOT a supporter, you are a compromiser. This includes the NRA.
"Support" like this does nothing but confuse people and weaken perceptions and opinions of the "absolute fact", that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", period.
Facts are facts and it is what it is.0 -
O'Reilly is an entertainer, and will say anything that will improve his revenue stream.
Just like Rush.
Doug0 -
Once again, I will repeat for the mentally challenged among us.
I PERSONALLY heard him explain how so very Constitutional it was for the States to require every citizen to turn in serial numbers of every gun you own.
"Sensible gun laws' indeed.
Every person supporting these types of laws and continuing to support people espousing them..from the president on down to loud mouths like o'reilley..are far more a threat to gun rights and gun ownership then
a hundred Shumers/Fiendsteins/kennedys/hillarys.
The difference being..those above named are honest about their fear of the common citizen.0 -
Warriorsfan you and I disagree on A great many things. On this one though, damn son you hit the nail right on the damned head. GOOD JOB. F**K O'Reilly, and all those who support not only gun control, but any form of infringment on our constitutional rights. Keep up the good work.quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
He supports "sensible" gun laws, i.e. registration and licensing. But it's not surprising to see so many sheeple in here sucking O'Reilly's c**k, even when he expresses his support for "sensible" gun control. He had an NRA rep on, BFD, that makes him a friend of gun owners? Isn't the NRA that pseudo gun rights org that also supports "sensible" gun control? I'm sure the Fox News honchos sent him a memo telling him to cool it with the support for gun control, so as to not alienate his "base", but I think we've heard how he really feels on the subject. F**k him.0 -
Rush Limbaugh is a babbler...[:0]
ORielly.... sly like fox[:D]0 -
Couldn't have said it better meownsef.
Doug0 -
quote:He supports "sensible" gun laws, i.e. registration and licensing. But it's not surprising to see so many sheeple in here sucking O'Reilly's c**k, even when he expresses his support for "sensible" gun control. He had an NRA rep on, BFD, that makes him a friend of gun owners? Isn't the NRA that pseudo gun rights org that also supports "sensible" gun control? I'm sure the Fox News honchos sent him a memo telling him to cool it with the support for gun control, so as to not alienate his "base", but I think we've heard how he really feels on the subject. F**k him. quote:
Warriorsfan,
Why do you have the need to be so filthy mouthed to get your point out ? just wondered.0 -
Possibly because he is a bit disgusted with those who support gun control, as well as the slow erosion of all of our other freedoms. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by sig232
quote:Originally posted by pabooger
That is not what he said. He in fact admitted that this happened tonight on his TV show, and that he is supported of sensible gun laws, but does not support banning our second amendment rights. He said and I quote, if you think for one minute that the Federal Government is going to protect you, you are wrong,citizens have the right to own firearms to protect themselves!!!
Thanks "PA" that clears up a lot, in my opinion.
O'Reilly is a supporter of gun rights the majority of the time. He does have a big ego and sometimes gets off track! But he stands with us to protect the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, as does the NRA![:0][:0]
If you only support gun-rights "the majority of the time", then you are NOT a supporter, you are a compromiser. This includes the NRA.
"Support" like this does nothing but confuse people and weaken perceptions and opinions of the "absolute fact", that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", period.
Facts are facts and it is what it is.
The problem is we are all different and see problems different. One person calls "X" a compromise and the next person sees it as "Y". It ain't as Black and White as you make it. Its not that simple.
If we take your position that there can be no gun regulations, then you stand alone in the corner. There are not many people in this great nation that will agree with you that it is OK for citizens to own a Abrams Tank, or a mini-gun on your truck, or a fully loaded F-18 with all the goodies. Yea there are a few but not many. So you see that is a compromise. As is ownership of machine guns outlawed since the 1929 Sullivan law. 99% of Americans would agree today that machine guns should not be in the hands of individual citizens.
I disagree with that position but I accept the compromise. All changes in society are compromises, all laws are compromises, otherwise nothing gets done in Congress. Thats how our system works.
Your idea of gun control is different from 99% of the rest of this country based on what you said, your strict definition.
The real problem is, how do all of us come up with a reasonable compromise that makes sense that we can all agree to accept. We are a long way from this point, in my opinion.
Loss of all gun rights is not acceptable, right? But then access to all military hardware is not acceptable on the other side, right?
You either compromise somewhat or you will be unhappy hiding under the stairs of your basement surrounded by your guns.
So my point is its all about compromise, life is about compromise. Very few of us get everything they way we want without some compromise.
The NRA has to do what it has to do to win most of its battles. Since most gun owners don't support the organization it has to compromise with the more powerfull lobby of anti-gun congressmen or simply back away and let them do as they may.
I blame gun owners for their lack of support for most of the compromises that we have today.[:(]0 -
Not many people agreed with the Founders. The rest were wrong.
Nothing has changed today...has it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
I just heard him cut a guy off on his radio show. The guy was talking about the Police confiscating firearms from citizens during Katrina, and O'Reilly cut him off and told him it didn't happen, and to get his facts straight. Wow is this guy a jerk or what?[:(!]
Trinity +++
Hey, your subject line said it all, no need to go any further than that. I overheard and glanced at his show a few times (not deliberately, but like because I was sitting at the airport with nothing to do other than stare at the public TV). The guy is a total moron... who likes to think of himself as running the "no spin zone" Quite arrogant too. A woman accused him of sexual misconduct with her... and he paid her off to keep it quite and keep his ass out of jail.
Oh billy prefers to share opinions on his talk show, not facts.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by sig232
quote:Originally posted by pabooger
That is not what he said. He in fact admitted that this happened tonight on his TV show, and that he is supported of sensible gun laws, but does not support banning our second amendment rights. He said and I quote, if you think for one minute that the Federal Government is going to protect you, you are wrong,citizens have the right to own firearms to protect themselves!!!
Thanks "PA" that clears up a lot, in my opinion.
O'Reilly is a supporter of gun rights the majority of the time. He does have a big ego and sometimes gets off track! But he stands with us to protect the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, as does the NRA![:0][:0]
If you only support gun-rights "the majority of the time", then you are NOT a supporter, you are a compromiser. This includes the NRA.
"Support" like this does nothing but confuse people and weaken perceptions and opinions of the "absolute fact", that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", period.
Facts are facts and it is what it is.
The problem is we are all different and see problems different. One person calls "X" a compromise and the next person sees it as "Y". It ain't as Black and White as you make it. Its not that simple.
If we take your position that there can be no gun regulations, then you stand alone in the corner. There are not many people in this great nation that will agree with you that it is OK for citizens to own a Abrams Tank, or a mini-gun on your truck, or a fully loaded F-18 with all the goodies. Yea there are a few but not many. So you see that is a compromise. As is ownership of machine guns outlawed since the 1929 Sullivan law. 99% of Americans would agree today that machine guns should not be in the hands of individual citizens.
I disagree with that position but I accept the compromise. All changes in society are compromises, all laws are compromises, otherwise nothing gets done in Congress. Thats how our system works.
Your idea of gun control is different from 99% of the rest of this country based on what you said, your strict definition.
The real problem is, how do all of us come up with a reasonable compromise that makes sense that we can all agree to accept. We are a long way from this point, in my opinion.
Loss of all gun rights is not acceptable, right? But then access to all military hardware is not acceptable on the other side, right?
You either compromise somewhat or you will be unhappy hiding under the stairs of your basement surrounded by your guns.
So my point is its all about compromise, life is about compromise. Very few of us get everything they way we want without some compromise.
The NRA has to do what it has to do to win most of its battles. Since most gun owners don't support the organization it has to compromise with the more powerfull lobby of anti-gun congressmen or simply back away and let them do as they may.
I blame gun owners for their lack of support for most of the compromises that we have today.[:(]
sig,
I see we are at it again.[:D]
Seeing things as different is not the problem. The problem is having an accurate understanding of the meaning of the Bill of Rights. It is indeed that simple.
Setting aside the fact that I never addressed the issue of private ownership of fighter aircraft, tanks, nukes, mini-guns etc, I want to keep this debate clean and to the point, so lets talk basic firearms, handguns, rifles, shotguns, real basic stuff.
You see, with the exception of a couple very minor hiccups throughout our history, it was pretty clearly understood and practiced, that Americans had the clear, simple right to keep and bear arms. That was written, very simply, into the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. Infringement is an easy word to comprehend, so by and large, those who chose to do so, happily exercised their God given rights.
Guns could be purchased basically in any manner, face to face, in the mail and on and on....You see, it was understood that this was a RIGHT, not a privilege granted by government. We still had the occasional mass murder, shooting of an innocent, nut case with a gun etc, but the difference was that people UNDERSTOOD that keeping and carrying firearms was a RIGHT, so people and behavior were punished.
I'll fast forward until your stated example of machine gun "compromise". You toss out a figure of 99% of Americans agreeing that they should be kept from individual citizens. I'll give you one and not dispute the percentage, it really doesn't matter. The point is that you disagree with "Sullivan", but agree with the compromise.
That, my friend, is my point and the problem.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are not open to "compromise" through judicial fiat, executive whim, legislative tyranny, or any other process but amending the document through the means established within the document, period.
The term "reasonable compromise" is nothing more than "herd-speak" for "I don't understand the Constitution, its implications and its restriction on government and society".
See, the founders knew that there would be people in society at large and elements in the government, that would always try to restrict what you and I could and should be allowed to do. The founders came up with a constitutional "leash" to prevent this, or at least make it so difficult to change, that many hoops must be jumped through before ANY changes could be made. Thus, the check and balance of change taking a long time and being required to stand the scrutiny of the citizens and their accountable, elected representatives.
You go on to equate the Constitution to other laws, legislated by Congress. You state that compromise is the way business is done and that we wouldn't get anything through congress without compromise.
Sig, no disrespect, but this illustrates my point, that most (yourself included I fear) just don't understand the real issue. You can not legally legislate away the US Constitution, period.
Normal legislation is all about compromise. The rights enumerated under the Constitution are not. It really is that simple.
I'll let everyone in on a little secret.....the Constitution and Bill of Rights are NOT authorized to be compromised, barring an amendment to said document, period.
Apply the same principal of "interpretation and compromise" (read infringement) to any of the other amendments and see the howls begin.
I agree that we are a long way from agreeing on an "acceptable" amount of infringement on the 2A and, frankly, the remainder of the document. I understand it for what it is and understand that it restricts government. It does not grant me my rights, I already have them. It simply enumerates the things that government has to keep away from, period.
I have to take another exception to your attempt to equate the simple issue of private firearms to "military hardware" I assume we are back to nukes and fighter aircraft with missiles and bombs.
Your attempt to say "we don't accept the total loss of all gun rights", but then again, we don't agree with total access to everything in a military's arsenal, is the same issue.
This is a straw-man, or red herring, argument and I won't go there. Keep it on topic. I don't see any past, or pending legislation, or proposed Constitutional Amendment to restrict private ownership of nukes, fighter jets or Abrahams tanks. It simply has no bearing on efforts to deny, restrict, nickel and dime, or otherwise infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms.
You close by inferring that I am destined to be some paranoid, unhappy little man, hiding under my stairs with my guns, unless, of course, I compromise my Constitutional Rights away.
You seem to infer that I can't understand the concept of compromise in life. I have been lectured, as if a small child, on the need for compromise in most situations. I shouldn't get into this point, but here goes.... Please don't mistake my stance on individual rights under the US Constitution, with my ability to function in society. You simply are commenting out of ignorance about me. You do not know what I do, or anything about my professional or personal life which would qualify a statement like that, period.
We will never agree on this issue. I see the Constitution for what it is, others see it for something else. There is no room for middle ground, or compromise, where my very freedom and my inherent, God-Given Rights are involved.
This is the fine line between us.
Many seem to lump Constitutional Rights in with general societal issues and do not draw a distinction between the Bill of Rights and some simple legislation, that the legislature has the authority to put in place.
Sig, I enjoy the debate with you and once again want to go on record that I believe you want to do the right thing. I simply don't see that you have an understanding of the core issue.
No disrespect intended sir.0 -
Bill O'Reilly has succumbed to the same problem Rush Limbaugh has. First, Mister O'Reilly has to talk for two hours on the radio and one hour on TV five times each week. Nobody can have that much to say about anything, so Mister O'Reilly had to hone his skill at talking incessantly without saying anything. Having done that, Mister O'Reilly has become much to impressed with Mister O'Reilly. Now that he has become infallible, I have lost interest in his rambling.
Mister O'Reilly favors "sensible gun control". Unfortunately, there is no such thing as sensible gun control.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Bill O'Reilly has succumbed to the same problem Rush Limbaugh has. First, Mister O'Reilly has to talk for two hours on the radio and one hour on TV five times each week. Nobody can have that much to say about anything, so Mister O'Reilly had to hone his skill at talking incessantly without saying anything. Having done that, Mister O'Reilly has become much to impressed with Mister O'Reilly. Now that he has become infallible, I have lost interest in his rambling.
Mister O'Reilly favors "sensible gun control". Unfortunately, there is no such thing as sensible gun control.
+1 On Mr O'Reilly![;)][;)] His ego is quite large and growing.
Sensible gun control is simply a matter of opinion. Tanks, F-18's private ownership????0 -
Quote: It496
sig,
I see we are at it again.
Seeing things as different is not the problem. The problem is having an accurate understanding of the meaning of the Bill of Rights. It is indeed that simple.
Setting aside the fact that I never addressed the issue of private ownership of fighter aircraft, tanks, nukes, mini-guns etc, I want to keep this debate clean and to the point, so lets talk basic firearms, handguns, rifles, shotguns, real basic stuff.
You see, with the exception of a couple very minor hiccups throughout our history, it was pretty clearly understood and practiced, that Americans had the clear, simple right to keep and bear arms. That was written, very simply, into the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. Infringement is an easy word to comprehend, so by and large, those who chose to do so, happily exercised their God given rights.
Guns could be purchased basically in any manner, face to face, in the mail and on and on....You see, it was understood that this was a RIGHT, not a privilege granted by government. We still had the occasional mass murder, shooting of an innocent, nut case with a gun etc, but the difference was that people UNDERSTOOD that keeping and carrying firearms was a RIGHT, so people and behavior were punished.
I'll fast forward until your stated example of machine gun "compromise". You toss out a figure of 99% of Americans agreeing that they should be kept from individual citizens. I'll give you one and not dispute the percentage, it really doesn't matter. The point is that you disagree with "Sullivan", but agree with the compromise.
That, my friend, is my point and the problem.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are not open to "compromise" through judicial fiat, executive whim, legislative tyranny, or any other process but amending the document through the means established within the document, period.
The term "reasonable compromise" is nothing more than "herd-speak" for "I don't understand the Constitution, its implications and its restriction on government and society".
See, the founders knew that there would be people in society at large and elements in the government, that would always try to restrict what you and I could and should be allowed to do. The founders came up with a constitutional "leash" to prevent this, or at least make it so difficult to change, that many hoops must be jumped through before ANY changes could be made. Thus, the check and balance of change taking a long time and being required to stand the scrutiny of the citizens and their accountable, elected representatives.
You go on to equate the Constitution to other laws, legislated by Congress. You state that compromise is the way business is done and that we wouldn't get anything through congress without compromise.
Sig, no disrespect, but this illustrates my point, that most (yourself included I fear) just don't understand the real issue. You can not legally legislate away the US Constitution, period.
Normal legislation is all about compromise. The rights enumerated under the Constitution are not. It really is that simple.
I'll let everyone in on a little secret.....the Constitution and Bill of Rights are NOT authorized to be compromised, barring an amendment to said document, period.
Apply the same principal of "interpretation and compromise" (read infringement) to any of the other amendments and see the howls begin.
I agree that we are a long way from agreeing on an "acceptable" amount of infringement on the 2A and, frankly, the remainder of the document. I understand it for what it is and understand that it restricts government. It does not grant me my rights, I already have them. It simply enumerates the things that government has to keep away from, period.
I have to take another exception to your attempt to equate the simple issue of private firearms to "military hardware" I assume we are back to nukes and fighter aircraft with missiles and bombs.
Your attempt to say "we don't accept the total loss of all gun rights", but then again, we don't agree with total access to everything in a military's arsenal, is the same issue.
This is a straw-man, or red herring, argument and I won't go there. Keep it on topic. I don't see any past, or pending legislation, or proposed Constitutional Amendment to restrict private ownership of nukes, fighter jets or Abrahams tanks. It simply has no bearing on efforts to deny, restrict, nickel and dime, or otherwise infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms.
You close by inferring that I am destined to be some paranoid, unhappy little man, hiding under my stairs with my guns, unless, of course, I compromise my Constitutional Rights away.
You seem to infer that I can't understand the concept of compromise in life. I have been lectured, as if a small child, on the need for compromise in most situations. I shouldn't get into this point, but here goes.... Please don't mistake my stance on individual rights under the US Constitution, with my ability to function in society. You simply are commenting out of ignorance about me. You do not know what I do, or anything about my professional or personal life which would qualify a statement like that, period.
We will never agree on this issue. I see the Constitution for what it is, others see it for something else. There is no room for middle ground, or compromise, where my very freedom and my inherent, God-Given Rights are involved.
This is the fine line between us.
Many seem to lump Constitutional Rights in with general societal issues and do not draw a distinction between the Bill of Rights and some simple legislation, that the legislature has the authority to put in place.
Sig, I enjoy the debate with you and once again want to go on record that I believe you want to do the right thing. I simply don't see that you have an understanding of the core issue.
No disrespect intended sir.
Great Argument: Hard to take an opposing position on that one, you are obviously a bright guy and believe strongly in you opinion.
It is interesting how the public gets desensitized to certain concepts by the media bringing it up over and over again, until the citizens of this country accept it as fact. Gun control fits this catagory, I am afraid.
Does the marshall have the right to make the cowboys take off their guns when they come into town and make them hang them up in the jailhouse? The bigger the city the tougher the rules. No guns in the public buildings, then no guns in the city, then registration of guns, then no guns allowed to be owned, then pick up the guns. This is Chicago today! NYC! Several states have gun registration or are trying to pass legislation to make it the law.
Nine of our federal court districts believe in the "collective rule" regarding gun ownership. Only two remain that believe its the right of individuals to own guns. Thank you Bill Clinton and others for placing activitist judges that invent and create new law to fit an agenda of a changing society. No gun organization wants to go to the Supreme Court because they know its a good chance personal gun ownership will be defeated. Now with two new judges there is a better chance for a favorable ruling today. But still a major risk with the likes of Ginsberg and other liberal judges seated in the court. This is the setting that we find ourselves in today.
Do we hold out like the battle at the Alamo and die to the last man or continue the fight until the political climate changes in our favor and attack again.
It is apparent that the legal minds that we elect to run our government don't have much respect for the Constitution. They interpret the Bill of Rights and Amendments by holding a finger up to the wind to determine which direction the social opinions of the day are blowing. Not just gun laws, but most Constitutional law. Many laws that discriminate against the majority and favor the minorities are a case in point. But, of course they twist and spin the truth and say that discrimination is ok because it prevents discrimination against the minorities. Point is they are still doing the opposite of the strict rule of law stated in the constitution.
Lawyers spend their lives finding ways to twist and bust through the Constitutional rule of law. They become heros among their peers and the top law schools. This is the reality that I refer to in my rant!!
This reflects the lack of morality and common sense among the leadership of our great country.
This is the working maze that the NRA must wade through each day when making its decisions as to which 10 of the 500 new laws restricting our rights it will choose to litigate against. They probably choose the ones that they think they have the best chance of winning. They are fighting a retreating action and have been for the last 20 years. With 4.3 million supporters thay have no chance of winning and will just do the best they can with the resources they have.
But there is a light at the end of the tunnel! There is hope! The liberals are coming around full circle, changlings that they are, and now a small fraction seem to be discovering "individual rights!"
They always take the opposite position and now a few of them are saying all these gun laws oppose individual rights! What a surpirse. Don't know if that is a fluke or a new front in the battle.
I do respect your opinion, think you are a smart guy and enjoy our jousting. I don't think we are as far apart as you might think. Just have different methoids to achieve our similar goal.[;)]0 -
I like him because he really gets down to the point sometimes and makes people cough up some answers, and doesnt let scum bags get away.
I dont like him because he is hard headed and wont let other speak0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
Sensible gun control is simply a matter of opinion. Tanks, F-18's private ownership????
At the risk of repeating lt496, I'll attempt to respond.
Is it unlawful to own an M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank or an F/A-18 Hornet? I don't think so, but I'll admit I'm not sure. Should it be unlawful? I don't think so. That's pretty much beside the point though, mainly because very few of us have to wherewithal to collect such things.
What does the Second Amendment say? What was (is) the reason for the Second Amendment?
It simply says:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment with this quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Jefferson thought it was just a matter of time before a tyrant or group of tyrants (the government) would, or would try to, establish a totalitarian government without the newfound freedoms of the new United States. The Second Amendment was intended in insure that THE PEOPLE would have the means to resist this tyrant or tyrants.
Your God given right to self defense was another reason for the Second Amendment, but it was a secondary reason.
The Second Amendment does not grant you the right or privilege to "Keep and bear arms". The RIGHT predates the Constitution. It is simply a recognition that the right exists and the government has no right to infringe upon it.
When you are permitted to exercise a RIGHT, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. A privilege can be granted or withheld by the person or organization with the authority to grant the privilege. You have a right to resist the infringement of a right by any means necessary.0 -
I just had some thoughts while reading this discussion.
The great majority of people no longer give serious thought to our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Maybe it will help some to understand some things I was taught in the past. Under the 4th amendment, people are supposed to be free from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. This allowed judges to "interpret" just what "unreasonable" meant. This has led to a general series of thoughts. Thoughts are ...
definition of search requires two things-a search is a governmental intrusion into a person or place with a resonable expectation of privacy-so if either it is not a governmental intrusion OR there is no expectation of privacy-no search exists.
Searches without a warrant are presumed illegal-putting the burden of proof on the police (govt) to prove that it was reasonable if there was no warrant.
Searches with a warrant are presumed legal-putting the burden of proof on the defendant (or person being searched) that the warrant was invalid (defective).
There have been 10 exceptions usually recognized as being valid or "reasonable"-these 10 have the power of law (by supreme court decision)-if you don't have any of the 10, then the search is considered "unreasonable" by the courts.
All of the above, I have included to demonstrate what happens by the way the constitution is worded and by just adding the word "reasonable" to the 4th amendment.
The 2nd amendment is much clearer-A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
In closing it states-..."the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is not much room for interpretation in the above statement. The part before seems to cause many to want to try to throw some interpretation into the amendment. The first part says- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...." is merely making a statement as to why the latter is necessary.
That is why those of us that believe in the strict interpretation of the constitution, don't believe that arms should be infringed.
The definition of infringed is...
in?fringe /#618;n#712;fr#618;nd#658;/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-frinj] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -fringed, -fring?ing.
-verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
-verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.
...so we don't want any laws which will trespass or encroach upon our right to keep and bear arms. It really is pretty simple if you think about it.
A large part of the problem comes from the fact that when teachers are discussing history and our constitution, they often do not even visit the second amendment. They simply pass it by because it "seems" dangerous or "too controversial". It is what it is and it really doesn't matter if it is dangerous or not. It is what our "supreme law of the land, our Constitution, REQUIRES!
Just my thoughts...0 -
LT496;
That, Sir, is truly a magnificent piece you put to the internet. Please, people...stop saying that the 'net is 'not real life'...because that post gives the lie to that statement.
That post sums up nicely the position EVERY AMERICAN ought to hold...and indeed..oddly...they do.
Oh...we have LEGIONS of 'compromisers'..willing to give up whatever the 'majority' deem necessary for domestic tranquility..those compromisers having absolutely no interest nor knowledge of what this country is based upon..but the idea of digging in their heels and demanding an end to UnConstitutional laws, edicts, and politicans never enter their heads...
Sir 496...Thanks for smoothing up and making presentable what I can only say harshly and in a most ugly fashion. Your way will win far more friends then mine..but I have grown weary of forever trying to not hurt peoples' 'feelings' ..as if feelings were more important then the beast taking over this country.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
Quote: It496
sig,
I see we are at it again.
Seeing things as different is not the problem. The problem is having an accurate understanding of the meaning of the Bill of Rights. It is indeed that simple.
Setting aside the fact that I never addressed the issue of private ownership of fighter aircraft, tanks, nukes, mini-guns etc, I want to keep this debate clean and to the point, so lets talk basic firearms, handguns, rifles, shotguns, real basic stuff.
You see, with the exception of a couple very minor hiccups throughout our history, it was pretty clearly understood and practiced, that Americans had the clear, simple right to keep and bear arms. That was written, very simply, into the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. Infringement is an easy word to comprehend, so by and large, those who chose to do so, happily exercised their God given rights.
Guns could be purchased basically in any manner, face to face, in the mail and on and on....You see, it was understood that this was a RIGHT, not a privilege granted by government. We still had the occasional mass murder, shooting of an innocent, nut case with a gun etc, but the difference was that people UNDERSTOOD that keeping and carrying firearms was a RIGHT, so people and behavior were punished.
I'll fast forward until your stated example of machine gun "compromise". You toss out a figure of 99% of Americans agreeing that they should be kept from individual citizens. I'll give you one and not dispute the percentage, it really doesn't matter. The point is that you disagree with "Sullivan", but agree with the compromise.
That, my friend, is my point and the problem.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are not open to "compromise" through judicial fiat, executive whim, legislative tyranny, or any other process but amending the document through the means established within the document, period.
The term "reasonable compromise" is nothing more than "herd-speak" for "I don't understand the Constitution, its implications and its restriction on government and society".
See, the founders knew that there would be people in society at large and elements in the government, that would always try to restrict what you and I could and should be allowed to do. The founders came up with a constitutional "leash" to prevent this, or at least make it so difficult to change, that many hoops must be jumped through before ANY changes could be made. Thus, the check and balance of change taking a long time and being required to stand the scrutiny of the citizens and their accountable, elected representatives.
You go on to equate the Constitution to other laws, legislated by Congress. You state that compromise is the way business is done and that we wouldn't get anything through congress without compromise.
Sig, no disrespect, but this illustrates my point, that most (yourself included I fear) just don't understand the real issue. You can not legally legislate away the US Constitution, period.
Normal legislation is all about compromise. The rights enumerated under the Constitution are not. It really is that simple.
I'll let everyone in on a little secret.....the Constitution and Bill of Rights are NOT authorized to be compromised, barring an amendment to said document, period.
Apply the same principal of "interpretation and compromise" (read infringement) to any of the other amendments and see the howls begin.
I agree that we are a long way from agreeing on an "acceptable" amount of infringement on the 2A and, frankly, the remainder of the document. I understand it for what it is and understand that it restricts government. It does not grant me my rights, I already have them. It simply enumerates the things that government has to keep away from, period.
I have to take another exception to your attempt to equate the simple issue of private firearms to "military hardware" I assume we are back to nukes and fighter aircraft with missiles and bombs.
Your attempt to say "we don't accept the total loss of all gun rights", but then again, we don't agree with total access to everything in a military's arsenal, is the same issue.
This is a straw-man, or red herring, argument and I won't go there. Keep it on topic. I don't see any past, or pending legislation, or proposed Constitutional Amendment to restrict private ownership of nukes, fighter jets or Abrahams tanks. It simply has no bearing on efforts to deny, restrict, nickel and dime, or otherwise infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms.
You close by inferring that I am destined to be some paranoid, unhappy little man, hiding under my stairs with my guns, unless, of course, I compromise my Constitutional Rights away.
You seem to infer that I can't understand the concept of compromise in life. I have been lectured, as if a small child, on the need for compromise in most situations. I shouldn't get into this point, but here goes.... Please don't mistake my stance on individual rights under the US Constitution, with my ability to function in society. You simply are commenting out of ignorance about me. You do not know what I do, or anything about my professional or personal life which would qualify a statement like that, period.
We will never agree on this issue. I see the Constitution for what it is, others see it for something else. There is no room for middle ground, or compromise, where my very freedom and my inherent, God-Given Rights are involved.
This is the fine line between us.
Many seem to lump Constitutional Rights in with general societal issues and do not draw a distinction between the Bill of Rights and some simple legislation, that the legislature has the authority to put in place.
Sig, I enjoy the debate with you and once again want to go on record that I believe you want to do the right thing. I simply don't see that you have an understanding of the core issue.
No disrespect intended sir.
Great Argument: Hard to take an opposing position on that one, you are obviously a bright guy and believe strongly in you opinion.
It is interesting how the public gets desensitized to certain concepts by the media bringing it up over and over again, until the citizens of this country accept it as fact. Gun control fits this catagory, I am afraid.
Does the marshall have the right to make the cowboys take off their guns when they come into town and make them hang them up in the jailhouse? The bigger the city the tougher the rules. No guns in the public buildings, then no guns in the city, then registration of guns, then no guns allowed to be owned, then pick up the guns. This is Chicago today! NYC! Several states have gun registration or are trying to pass legislation to make it the law.
Nine of our federal court districts believe in the "collective rule" regarding gun ownership. Only two remain that believe its the right of individuals to own guns. Thank you Bill Clinton and others for placing activitist judges that invent and create new law to fit an agenda of a changing society. No gun organization wants to go to the Supreme Court because they know its a good chance personal gun ownership will be defeated. Now with two new judges there is a better chance for a favorable ruling today. But still a major risk with the likes of Ginsberg and other liberal judges seated in the court. This is the setting that we find ourselves in today.
Do we hold out like the battle at the Alamo and die to the last man or continue the fight until the political climate changes in our favor and attack again.
It is apparent that the legal minds that we elect to run our government don't have much respect for the Constitution. They interpret the Bill of Rights and Amendments by holding a finger up to the wind to determine which direction the social opinions of the day are blowing. Not just gun laws, but most Constitutional law. Many laws that discriminate against the majority and favor the minorities are a case in point. But, of course they twist and spin the truth and say that discrimination is ok because it prevents discrimination against the minorities. Point is they are still doing the opposite of the strict rule of law stated in the constitution.
Lawyers spend their lives finding ways to twist and bust through the Constitutional rule of law. They become heros among their peers and the top law schools. This is the reality that I refer to in my rant!!
This reflects the lack of morality and common sense among the leadership of our great country.
This is the working maze that the NRA must wade through each day when making its decisions as to which 10 of the 500 new laws restricting our rights it will choose to litigate against. They probably choose the ones that they think they have the best chance of winning. They are fighting a retreating action and have been for the last 20 years. With 4.3 million supporters thay have no chance of winning and will just do the best they can with the resources they have.
But there is a light at the end of the tunnel! There is hope! The liberals are coming around full circle, changlings that they are, and now a small fraction seem to be discovering "individual rights!"
They always take the opposite position and now a few of them are saying all these gun laws oppose individual rights! What a surpirse. Don't know if that is a fluke or a new front in the battle.
I do respect your opinion, think you are a smart guy and enjoy our jousting. I don't think we are as far apart as you might think. Just have different methoids to achieve our similar goal.[;)]
You are alright in my book sir.[;)] We can agree to disagree on the method, but it is obvious that we both have the best interest of America at heart.
Good debate.
Jeff0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
LT496;
That, Sir, is truly a magnificent piece you put to the internet. Please, people...stop saying that the 'net is 'not real life'...because that post gives the lie to that statement.
That post sums up nicely the position EVERY AMERICAN ought to hold...and indeed..oddly...they do.
Oh...we have LEGIONS of 'compromisers'..willing to give up whatever the 'majority' deem necessary for domestic tranquility..those compromisers having absolutely no interest nor knowledge of what this country is based upon..but the idea of digging in their heels and demanding an end to UnConstitutional laws, edicts, and politicans never enter their heads...
Sir 496...Thanks for smoothing up and making presentable what I can only say harshly and in a most ugly fashion. Your way will win far more friends then mine..but I have grown weary of forever trying to not hurt peoples' 'feelings' ..as if feelings were more important then the beast taking over this country.
Thank you Highball, I appreciate the kind words.
I tend to get a little riled on occasion, particularly about my Constitution and Bill of Rights, but once in awhile I can settle down enough to write something marginally coherent.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
57 comments