Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

O’Reilly’s Out of the Closet — An Advocate for Gun Control

Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:23
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

As befits the usual stealth of a Fabian Socialist, whose incremental motto for promoting Socialism is “two steps forward, one step back…” Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly recently floated the idea that the U.S. Congress has the power and the ability to outlaw the sale of “certain” types of weapons (never once saying ‘assault’ weapons), for the supposedly laudable purpose of making us all “safer” and to protect us from being on the wrong end of a terrorist’s “high-powered” assault rifle.
Considering Mr O’Reilly’s Jesuit background, It comes as no surprise that he favors and promotes a so-called “assault weapons” ban.  While Mr. O’Reilly leaves out the fact that the only true assault weapons are fully automatic, not the civilian semi-automatics sold in America, a so-called “assault weapons ban” would do as much good as it did the last time it was tried under the Bill Clinton administration… next to nothing.  Just check the FBI bureau of statistics.  The “assault weapons” ban on crimes committed with firearms could barely be measured.
Despite being used in Orlando by a radical Islamic terrorist (a phrase our Muslim apologist President still refuses to utter), such weapons are used in less than one percent of crimes committed with firearms.  But even if they comprised 99%, how would such use justify dis-arming and forbidding the vast majority of decent and responsible firearms owners from purchasing a weapon that has been legal, in one form or another, for over 100 years?  If the radical Islamic terrorist in Orlando drove into that gay nightclub with a car or a bulldozer and killed an equivalent number of people, would his murderous actions justify outlawing ownership of automobiles or bulldozers because one demented individual chose to misuse such a vehicle for evil purposes?
O’Reilly further muddies the waters by referring to semi-automatic rifles as “weapons of mass destruction!   I may be naive, but i always thought that phrase only referred to bombs of the atomic variety.
If Mr. O’Reilly and others who clamor to again outaw civilian sale and possession of such a rifle actually bother to read Our Founders’ debates around the 2nd Amendment, they will discover that Our Founders wanted the militia — that’s every able bodied citizen — to have the right to carry the same type of firearm and have the same type of firepower as the U.S. military.  That was because in the event of an armed conflict with our government, the PEOPLE would not be at a disadvantage!  This “armed equvalence” IS the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment!
Prestitutes in the media have tried, over successive administrations, to develop the “sporting purpose” theory — the bogus concept that if a rifle or other firearm was not intended for a “Sporting Purpose” (ie., hunting) then it should be forbidden for civilian possession.  The Founding Fathers would laugh at such stupidity, and label this creeping submission to a continually overreaching Federal government for the danger it truly represents; the slippery slope towards totalitarian dictatorship.
I continue to be amazed when educated people, including commentators such as O’Reilly, who prides himself on his knowledge of History, illustrate that they do not understand the basic principle underlying the Second Amendment — which is a balance of power between the government military and civilians of “the militia.”  
At a time when having a weapon capable of defending against terrorists should be available to any American legally entitled to possess it, O’Reilly instead would reduce the general public’s ability to respond to terrorists who would probably possess fully automatic weapons, or at the very least, the same weapons he wishes to make unavailable to Americans.
Using similar ”logic”,  the same case could ultimately be made for forbidding the possession of all civilian semi-automatic firearms, or ANY firearm … after all, they are ALL  ”dangerous” and designed to kill people – and they are all “weapons of war.”   Apparently it is somehow better to be a placid sitting duck than to take responsibility for one’s own safety and security — one’s own life — and have the ability to fight back.
O’Reilly further labors under the common delusion prevalent among even supporters of the 2nd Amendment that the word and phrase “…well-regulated militia….” somehow implies the right of government control and oversight of firearms ownership.  Quite simply, it does not.  It never has.  Being a wordsmith, Mr. OReilly should know that the meaning of certain words and their usage change over time;  ”…regulated” in this context, is one of them.
In Eighteenth Century America, the uniformed soldiers of the Continental Army were called regulars.”  They were called regulars because they drilled, practiced and rehearsed their tactics on a regular basis.
“well regulated militia” which is — by very definition — NOT under direct government control, refers instead to a group of “irregulars” (which is how the civilian militia was referred to at that timewho were well drilled, practiced and rehearsed in their tactics despite remaining apart from ”The Regulars” of the Continental Army.
Therefore, in this specific context and considering the time during which it was written, “well-regulated” does NOT refer to government oversight or control — it simply refers to a citizen militia that is familiar with their weaponry and the tactics of guerrilla warfare on land.  This is precisely why this phrase was inserted into the 2nd Amendment.   
Since the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights for the precise reason that they wanted a citizen militia (composed of The People who were not part of the Continental Army) to be able to repulse a Federal Government that might, at some point in time, try to usurp the Rights of the People, it would truly be assinine and the height of folly for our Founders to have given control of this countervailing force to the very government it would potentially seek to resist!
While it is true that Congress is free to make up any law they wish regarding any of the rights or amendments enshrined in our Bill of Rights, for them to do so may be “legal” but it does not make such legislation “lawful.” More than once do our Founders refer to Our Creator as the Ultimate Author of all laws, and ANY law which violates Natural Law (such as the right to free speech and assembly, and the right to worship enshrined in the 1st Amendment, as well as the right to self-defense, enshrined in the 2nd Amendment) is on its face — VOID OF AUTHORITY.
Congress is free to make any law it chooses, and attempt to enforce it.   Congress can make it lawful to institute slavery again, as it once did.   But just as slavery was once “legal” in America,  it was NEVER LAWFUL because slavery violates THE NATURAL LAW of Our Creator.  
Our Federal legislature may try to impose any law it may cobble together to restrict the rights of Americans to defend themselves from the predatory assasult of radical Islamic terrorists or an out-of-control Federal Government by restricting the right of civilian access and ownership to so-called ‘assault’ weapons.   But by doing so, it will have infringed upon our choice to choose in the free market those very tools which our forefathers gave us to fight oppression in any form and remain a free people.  Such a law would be void of the authority imparted by Our Creator to resist oppression and to fight to remain a free people.
Apparently, Mr. O’Reilly and other closet “Progressives” need to look up the definition of a new word and add it to their vocabulary — “infringed”... as in SHALL NOT!
Copyright LCVincent 2016 — all rights reserved

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.