Bill O'Reilly takes stunning stance on guns after Orlando massacre

Thing1 said:
As soon as I read the bolded, I got a crazy fit of yawning.

Do you guys ever get tired of overusing that incredibly bogus example and comparison?

People can have guns. The 2nd amendment guarantees that. People can't have every weapon that we're able to develop, and they shouldn't have weapons that are specifically designed to kill a lot of people, fast.
Click to expand...

Define "a lot of people" and "fast"

Because taking your statement logically it would seem you are ok with guns that kill a few people slowly.

You see no matter how you anti gun types try to shroud your intentions your position will invariably lead to outlawing ALL guns and confiscation. So when push comes to shove you will fail

If dead 6 year olds couldn't get it done for you you 50 queers who represent less than 1% of the population won't.
 
Teflon Don said:
Define "a lot of people" and "fast"

Because taking your statement logically it would seem you are ok with guns that kill a few people slowly.

You see no matter how you anti gun types try to shroud your intentions your position will invariably lead to outlawing ALL guns and confiscation. So when push comes to shove you will fail

If dead 6 year olds couldn't get it done for you you 50 queers who represent less than 1% of the population won't.
Click to expand...

There really isn't any reason to get hyperbolic about it, or try to twist meanings.

SCOTUS has used the argument "I know it when I see it." I think most Americans know it when they see it when it comes to weapons that go beyond hunting & self-defense. The weapon used this past weekend is in that category. It's a simple fact: fewer would have been killed if he didn't have it.
 
Teflon Don said:
Oreilly is as uniformed about guns as JPP liberals

Challenge for the JPP liberals.

Many on the left keep saying that these are "military weapons". OK name on military unit in the United States that uses a AR15 as its weapon of choice? Can anyone?
Click to expand...

Because there are "better choices" for the armed forces does not change anything.......
 
Thing1 said:
There really isn't any reason to get hyperbolic about it, or try to twist meanings.

SCOTUS has used the argument "I know it when I see it." I think most Americans know it when they see it when it comes to weapons that go beyond hunting & self-defense. The weapon used this past weekend is in that category. It's a simple fact: fewer would have been killed if he didn't have it.
Click to expand...

how many did Seung-Hui Cho kill with just handguns?
 
Thing1 said:
There really isn't any reason to get hyperbolic about it, or try to twist meanings.

SCOTUS has used the argument "I know it when I see it." I think most Americans know it when they see it when it comes to weapons that go beyond hunting & self-defense. The weapon used this past weekend is in that category. It's a simple fact: fewer would have been killed if he didn't have it.
Click to expand...

again, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self defense. why do people insist on destroying the constitution and the freedoms it's supposed to protect?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
again, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self defense. why do people insist on destroying the constitution and the freedoms it's supposed to protect?
Click to expand...

I understand your argument about the 2nd amendment, but this is exactly where we need to re-visit the Constitution periodically. I don't expect the founders to be psychics, or to be able to see centuries into the future.

In order to remain consistent w/ the spirit of that amendment, how far would you go? The military does have nukes, after all. They have tanks, missiles & other weapons that would be ludicrous to put in the hands of average citizens.

We have a right as a society to assess the threats to our safety & well-being, and determine which should be a higher priority. Your priority is what I & I would think most would consider to be an extremely small probability that we as a people will have an armed uprising (or something of that sort) against our government. My priority is seeing mass killings like this one - of which there is an extremely HIGH probability of happening again, and again - from continuing to be a regular part of our lives.
 
Thing1 said:
I understand your argument about the 2nd amendment, but this is exactly where we need to re-visit the Constitution periodically. I don't expect the founders to be psychics, or to be able to see centuries into the future.

In order to remain consistent w/ the spirit of that amendment, how far would you go? The military does have nukes, after all. They have tanks, missiles & other weapons that would be ludicrous to put in the hands of average citizens.
Click to expand...
in order to ascertain the answer to this, we would need to ask ourselves 'would the government nuke it's own citizens?' if that answer is yes, then we either need our own nukes or we need to take nukes away from the government. same with tanks, missiles, and other weapons. If a weapon would be brought to bear upon citizens by the government, then the citizens should also have it.

Thing1 said:
We have a right as a society to assess the threats to our safety & well-being, and determine which should be a higher priority. Your priority is what I & I would think most would consider to be an extremely small probability that we as a people will have an armed uprising (or something of that sort) against our government. My priority is seeing mass killings like this one - of which there is an extremely HIGH probability of happening again, and again - from continuing to be a regular part of our lives.
Click to expand...
the problem with your thinking and playing the odds is that should it actually happen, we're fucked. the founders considered this issue and they agreed that they would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. This means taking responsibility in public and society by not being a soft target or defenseless victim.

Just because YOU would prefer to not use firearms and violence for your protection doesn't give you the right to prevent others from doing so.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
in order to ascertain the answer to this, we would need to ask ourselves 'would the government nuke it's own citizens?' if that answer is yes, then we either need our own nukes or we need to take nukes away from the government. same with tanks, missiles, and other weapons. If a weapon would be brought to bear upon citizens by the government, then the citizens should also have it.

the problem with your thinking and playing the odds is that should it actually happen, we're fucked. the founders considered this issue and they agreed that they would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. This means taking responsibility in public and society by not being a soft target or defenseless victim.

Just because YOU would prefer to not use firearms and violence for your protection doesn't give you the right to prevent others from doing so.
Click to expand...

Well, I think we should eliminate nukes. So, for the sake of argument, let's take those off the table. Still, I want the U.S. to be equipped w/ all of the latest & greatest in every other area, for national defense. And in no way whatsoever would I want private citizens to have access to a lot of that.

And here is where it pertains to your last line about my preference. I think more Americans are coming around to what my preference is - it's only at the point where that tips into a majority that anything would be done, anyway. I think that's the only way a society can work; if enough people feel a certain way, things change, and they should.

And I'm a little like O'Reilly and some others who seem to be coming around to the same point of view. I haven't always been this focused on the 2nd amendment, or the idea of banning more weapons. I'm just tired of it, like many are - tired of these stories, tired of seeing the President talking about another tragedy. And I don't think it's a knee-jerk, irrational reaction. When I see the kind of weapons like the one this guy used demonstrated, I'm pretty flabbergasted that they were available in the 1st place.

The idea of the citizenry matching the government in an armed conflict was much more realistic in the 18th century. It's really pretty fantastical today, even if we allow the public access to these kinds of weapons.
 
Thing1 said:
Well, I think we should eliminate nukes. So, for the sake of argument, let's take those off the table. Still, I want the U.S. to be equipped w/ all of the latest & greatest in every other area, for national defense. And in no way whatsoever would I want private citizens to have access to a lot of that.
Click to expand...
so your distrust of your fellow american overrides the fear and distrust that the founders had in government?

Thing1 said:
And here is where it pertains to your last line about my preference. I think more Americans are coming around to what my preference is - it's only at the point where that tips into a majority that anything would be done, anyway. I think that's the only way a society can work; if enough people feel a certain way, things change, and they should.
Click to expand...
even if it means eliminating fundamental constitutional rights?

Thing1 said:
And I'm a little like O'Reilly and some others who seem to be coming around to the same point of view. I haven't always been this focused on the 2nd amendment, or the idea of banning more weapons. I'm just tired of it, like many are - tired of these stories, tired of seeing the President talking about another tragedy. And I don't think it's a knee-jerk, irrational reaction. When I see the kind of weapons like the one this guy used demonstrated, I'm pretty flabbergasted that they were available in the 1st place.
Click to expand...
so your distrust of your fellow american overrides the fear and distrust that the founders had in government?

Thing1 said:
The idea of the citizenry matching the government in an armed conflict was much more realistic in the 18th century. It's really pretty fantastical today, even if we allow the public access to these kinds of weapons.
Click to expand...

at most, there are about 5 million military members and law enforcement agents. you think that government force would still put down a rebellion of 10 million armed citizens?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so your distrust of your fellow american overrides the fear and distrust that the founders had in government?

even if it means eliminating fundamental constitutional rights?

so your distrust of your fellow american overrides the fear and distrust that the founders had in government?

at most, there are about 5 million military members and law enforcement agents. you think that government force would still put down a rebellion of 10 million armed citizens?
Click to expand...

I think it's a mistake to interpret my position as one of trusting our government more than its people. I don't trust the government. I think our government is run by corporate interests, and they engage in a lot of activity that has masked intentions and does not serve the people at large. But that lack of trust is different from thinking there is a chance that they would overtly subvert our interests & assume control in a way that took away our right to remove them completely, with our vote. I can distrust the government, and also think that we can always replace them, every 2, 4 or 6 years, and that this will not change. I guess you might call that naive, but we're going on 230+ years at this point, and haven't even flirted w/ the possibility of any extreme scenario like that happening.

I also think it's a mistake to say that I don't trust most Americans. I trust gun owners like you, and I think you represent the majority of gun owners. But I don't trust everyone, no. And neither should you. And all it takes is a few bad eggs.

I don't think anything that is being talked about eliminates constitutional rights. I'd accept "modifies."

I do think, even if it came to that, that the gov't could put down a rebellion of that size, and probably pretty easily. People aren't trained in tactics & strategy, and they're not organized. I wouldn't be optimistic in such a scenario.
 
Thing1 said:
I don't think anything that is being talked about eliminates constitutional rights. I'd accept "modifies."
Click to expand...
would you then accept that ALL rights can be modified?

Thing1 said:
I do think, even if it came to that, that the gov't could put down a rebellion of that size, and probably pretty easily. People aren't trained in tactics & strategy, and they're not organized. I wouldn't be optimistic in such a scenario.
Click to expand...
how many of those civilians would you think are ex-military and also have tactical training? tunnel vision doesn't help you in this. you have to think outside the box.
 
Thing1 said:
There really isn't any reason to get hyperbolic about it, or try to twist meanings.

SCOTUS has used the argument "I know it when I see it." I think most Americans know it when they see it when it comes to weapons that go beyond hunting & self-defense. The weapon used this past weekend is in that category. It's a simple fact: fewer would have been killed if he didn't have it.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. That is nothing but speculation on your part.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
would you then accept that ALL rights can be modified?

how many of those civilians would you think are ex-military and also have tactical training? tunnel vision doesn't help you in this. you have to think outside the box.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they're out there, but how do they organize? And how do they get the rest trained & up-to-speed in what I assume would be a pretty short timeframe? Also, I'm not really talking about the one major differentiator. As much as you argue that we should be armed just as the gov't is - and I don't discount your interpretation of the 2nd, there - it isn't the current reality, and it will never happen. I mean, with the way things stand today: do you think we match up to the gov't at all in terms of weaponry? We just don't, and won't.

I don't like the sound of modifying all rights, but ultimately, we do have a right to change the Constitution, written into the Constitution itself. I also think the 2nd amendment is just one where the founders failed to envision what kind of world we'd have today. I don't think that is lack of intelligence or foresight on their part. I think it would have been impossible for anyone to imagine then.
 
Thing1 said:
I understand your argument about the 2nd amendment, but this is exactly where we need to re-visit the Constitution periodically. I don't expect the founders to be psychics, or to be able to see centuries into the future.

In order to remain consistent w/ the spirit of that amendment, how far would you go? The military does have nukes, after all. They have tanks, missiles & other weapons that would be ludicrous to put in the hands of average citizens.

We have a right as a society to assess the threats to our safety & well-being, and determine which should be a higher priority. Your priority is what I & I would think most would consider to be an extremely small probability that we as a people will have an armed uprising (or something of that sort) against our government. My priority is seeing mass killings like this one - of which there is an extremely HIGH probability of happening again, and again - from continuing to be a regular part of our lives.
Click to expand...

Then why can't we have a conversation about revisiting the 1st Amendment and banning a religion? If you think the Constitution gives the right to the government to ban certain guns then it follows the same logic can apply to the 1st Amendment. Or are you not that flexible?
 
Teflon Don said:
Then why can't we have a conversation about revisiting the 1st Amendment and banning a religion? If you think the Constitution gives the right to the government to ban certain guns then it follows the same logic can apply to the 1st Amendment. Or are you not that flexible?
Click to expand...

You can.

Have at it. Good luck w/ that.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm sure they're out there, but how do they organize? And how do they get the rest trained & up-to-speed in what I assume would be a pretty short timeframe? Also, I'm not really talking about the one major differentiator. As much as you argue that we should be armed just as the gov't is - and I don't discount your interpretation of the 2nd, there - it isn't the current reality, and it will never happen. I mean, with the way things stand today: do you think we match up to the gov't at all in terms of weaponry? We just don't, and won't.
Click to expand...
that is because people with your mindset has allowed the government to slowly whittle away that right, just like it is this time.

Thing1 said:
I don't like the sound of modifying all rights, but ultimately, we do have a right to change the Constitution, written into the Constitution itself. I also think the 2nd amendment is just one where the founders failed to envision what kind of world we'd have today. I don't think that is lack of intelligence or foresight on their part. I think it would have been impossible for anyone to imagine then.
Click to expand...
and I would disagree. the founders knew about tech advancements, but their experience taught them that freedom in the hands of the people is necessary, thus being as equally armed as the government is necessary.

all I see you trying to do is take power away from the people and place it in the hands of the government. tell me again how that is not distrusting people more than the government
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top