Bill O’Reilly Bails on the Bill of Rights, Calls for Gun Control

Bill O'Reilly (courtesy Fox News)

“Bill O’Reilly stunned many viewers Tuesday night when he called for some measures of gun control to be implemented after the terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida, that claimed the lives at least 49 people — the deadliest mass shooting in US history,” yahoo.finance.com reports. And here it is, straight from the horse’s . . . mouth. [Click on link to watch.]

There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get. That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades.

That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale. And the states, the individual states, should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their own people.

The Fox News superstar said new laws were “definitely needed” in the face of new terrorist threats and mass murders.

The FBI and other federal agencies need the power to stop suspected terrorists or other evildoers from buying weapons. That law needs to be very precise.

Also, gun dealers all across America should be required to report the sale of certain kinds of guns, heavy weapons, directly to the FBI. Not handguns, not talking about that, but other weapons that would be defined by Congress. That is a sane approach and would make it a lot tougher for the Omar Mateens of the world to get the weaponry to kill.

I so called this. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly was, is and will always be a statist in populist clothes. He no more supports the Second Amendment than Hillary Clinton.

Time to circle the wagons boys! Just make sure we got the right people doin’ the circling.

comments

  1. avatar Omer Baker says:

    The Feds already have the power to stop anyone from having guns. It’s called conviction. If they can’t convict someone then they should shut up or blame the people whose job, they claim, is to protect people, law enforcement and prosecutors.

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      This is the answer to it right there, all of it.

      The second amendment was written specifically for exactly this kind of overreach, and it is being tossed aside with hardly a second thought by the progressives, and that includes all the stealth progressives like McConnell.

      O’Reilly is an ass, always has been, but this is instructive.

      Sanity has to prevail here, but they are pulling out everything the have it seems. I wonder if all their NSA dirt is being used to pressure many of these people to cave.

      1. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

        That would be if these asshats weren’t statists to begin with.

    2. avatar Greg says:

      I bailed on O’Reilly several years when I decided he was a fraud. Seems like I made the right decision. He’s just a typical NY media type who has no regard for individual liberty. He’s all about the ratings. Nothing more.

      1. avatar KennethGMaiden says:

        Me too. Now lets do something about that 1A and social media. Huh Bill?
        Effing done with you, your books and cheap crap.

      2. avatar Alinsky says:

        O’Reilly is NOT a conservative, he’s an actor.
        He’s a pile of dawgshit attracting flies.

    3. avatar Grumpy F'er says:

      I guess it’s finally time for me to work on 1 or more 80% lowers.

  2. avatar Jeffro says:

    Wow, I never knew guns committed crimes. Did he have any credible statistics?

    Crayola’s for lunch, and Elmer’s for snack-time on Billy-boy’s menu. With a side of window to lick.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      “Wow, I never knew guns committed crimes. ”

      Unlike that gun that was “just turning its life around”, mine are all model citizens.

    2. avatar Carl says:

      Wow man those Snozzberries taste like Snozzberries!

      1. avatar 16V says:

        Don’t. Stop….

  3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Well I can’t refuse to watch him any longer since I pulled my cable TV connection over a decade and a half ago.

  4. avatar knightofbob says:

    Rupert Murdoch is not our friend in this. From what I’ve seen, his companies’ coverage were a big part of pushing and popularizing the post-Port Arthur gun control acts. That a long term employee of his might have the same leanings is no surprise.

    If I had the money, I could run down to the Indian reservation nearby and grab all kinds of mortars. I’d be breaking state law if I left native land, but not federal. And, Bill: http://www.militarytrader.com/military-vehicles-news/buying-a-sherman-tank

  5. avatar Joe R. says:

    Ratings much?

    We’d all rather he’d try ‘Selfies with animals in barn.’

    1. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

      … or “Live, from inside the Gorilla enclosure…”

  6. avatar Defens says:

    The only “heavy weapons” that I’m aware of for sale to civilians are those that weigh a lot – and are not conducive to easy carry into the local nightclub. Unless you want to pay the NFA taxes and exorbitant prices, crew served weaons, mortars, and the like, are pretty much off limits.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “Heavy weapons” and “crew-served weapons” most certainly are an option to We the People. Our U.S. Constitution explicitly grants fedzilla the power to “grant letters of marque and reprisal” … which means to issue “… a government license authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels …” according to Wikipedia. It should be obvious that a person who is going to attack and capture enemy vessels needs their own vessel complete with cannons and the like — e.g. a warship. If a warship with cannons and the like isn’t a “heavy weapon” as well as a “crew-served weapon”, I don’t know what is.

  7. avatar Illinois Shooter says:

    Idiot.

    For being someone that professes his knowledge of history, he either knows little of history around the 2A OR he is yet another softie that is willing trade American values, history, and freedom for better feelings and maybe, some tiny slice of security (though i disagree with the security part).

    He ignores that cannons, bombs, etc could all be owned by civilians (and generally were), along with even ships armed with cannons. If you could afford it, you could buy it.

    The government could to, but that was why there was a CHECK in the constitution against government power and overreach. Just like they cant ban free speech because internet (the most powerful tool around now!) they cant forbid ownership of weapons (yes, even heavy crew served weapons)

  8. avatar Senior Gun Owner 1950 says:

    Another RINO shows his true colors

    1. avatar No Soup 4 You says:

      Like scumbag ,Senator from Pennsylvania , PAT TOOMEY …. ( R ) = RINO , Has joined the Democrats Gun Grab today ( per C-Span )……… sad , but not a surprise. Traitor.

      1. avatar Wiregrass says:

        I told him I would leave him off the Ballot if he caved to pressure from the Democrats. I was going to anyway because of his previous adventures in seeking gun contol.

      2. avatar John E> says:

        written today:

        Senator Toomey,

        How does limiting the rights of law abiding citizens stop terrorist acts? How is a system such as the terrorist watch-list, where a citizen can be placed on the list without due process, consistent with the Bill of Rights.

        I am tired of feel good, reactionary politics. I am tired of beltway elitism. Politicians have become self-interested, self-serving and self-promoting. Perhaps before we look at banning a rifle, or eliminating due process, we need to discuss term-limits.

        I will remind you, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It is about individual defense and the protection against over-reaching government. And before you categorize me as a radical I would encourage you and your staffers to read the Federalist papers. The Bill of Rights enumerates our natural rights, it does not confer rights on us from the government. These rights exist outside the government.

        At a time when violent crime is at a forty-year low I encourage you and your fellow Senators to slow down on the creating more laws and bureaucracy that limit my rights and look to how we can eliminate radicalism stemming from the Islam.

    2. avatar 16V says:

      His next book will be titled Killing Truth – Bill O’Reilly’s Delusions.

      I have generally found him factually challenged at times, if occasionally amusing. He wouldn’t last 20 minutes in high school debate, but it’s good enough for TV….

  9. avatar jwm says:

    Another left wing twerp.

  10. avatar Nuzzo says:

    This idiot managed to get something right for once.

    Like I said in an earlier post.

    Shootings don’t happen in the rest of the world on a daily basis.

    UK has seen no mass shootings whatsoever.

    Canada only has had only 8 shootings in only 20 years.

    Australia had no mass killings after laws were passed in 1996,

    Japan has seen no mass killings ever.

    Singapore has seen no mass killers every and continues to have to lowest homicide and suicide rates.

    Europe hardly sees any mass killings with gun.

    While the US sees them almost on a weekly or monthly.

    The victims of these attacks will never get any closure whatsoever as long as the NRA, The gun lobby and it’s puppet politicians are dominating congress.

    Yeah how can a multi-billion dollar weapon industry be so “bullied” and “oppressed” by people who just want the madness to stop.

    Passing gun control will great reduce murders, violent crimes and suicides.

    Why do these pro-gun absolutists see nothing wrong with these incidents and shame their victims of these attacks.

    Why does these gun absolutist see an absurd obsolete amendment written 200+ ago by men who had no idea
    about technology evolving.

    If the founders saw what their precious “gun right” did to future generations, They would change their minds pretty fast.

    Why is this so hard to understand?

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      You can believe this, sure.

      Pass an amendment.

      Patriot act! Bush! Tyranny!

      Yea, all words when the feds might catch your porn stash, rights that other men hold dear to them, … whatever.

      Bush=Hitler right?

      1. avatar 16V says:

        ‘Patriot Act’= High Treason of the most obscene flavor.

        We both know better than than the clown OP, but c’mon man. Anyone who signed off on ‘Patriot” should be tried for treason. Trashing The Constitution in a governmental power grab? You bet your ass that Bush’s punk alky kid was batting warm-up for the coming of some “devil”.

        1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

          I am only pointing out the inconsistency here.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          OP is delusionally unaware. I’m just saying Bush is as treasonous as the day is long in ‘Patriot’. That document was the final nail in the coffin they’ve stuck The Constitution in. Secret courts, surveillance, indefinite suspension of habeas corpus.

          We’ve become a banana republic. The proles just don’t realize it quite yet.

        3. avatar Mr. 308 says:

          I don’t disagree with you 16V, not in the slightest.

        4. avatar 16V says:

          Mr.308, I think we almost always agree. Especially about those 5.56 poodle poppers….

    2. avatar surlycmd says:

      All or nothing. If technology doesn’t apply to the Second Amendment then it doesn’t apply to the others. There is a process to change the 2nd. Use it if you can.

    3. avatar Dev says:

      Shootings don’t happen daily in the rest of the world? You really believe that? Don’t even think to start with this “developed world” crap either. It’s unbelievable to me how naive and ignorant so many people are.

    4. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      Okay I give up, why is it so hard for you to understand?

    5. avatar SelousX says:

      I’m going to assume you’re not descended from genocide survivors, otherwise you’d know why we need our “liberty teeth”. You’d be well-advised to remember a firearm is but a tool that with which any wielder may work their will, good or ill.
      I sincerely hope that one day soon you will know what I and others write here in reply by personal experience. Be well.

    6. avatar My life matters says:

      Forgot about the 2011 Norway shooting killing 77 people? Cause gun control worked with that one /sarc. It’s about 20 times harder to get a gun in Norway and they have almost 100 times less people and 100 times less guns than the US and still managed to eclipse our worst mass shooting ever. Yeah so don’t give me that Europe is a model for gun control bull crap.

    7. avatar HP says:

      That’s a whole lot of liberal emotion you’ve spewed forth here, but sadly, very little of it is based in reality. You know what reality is, right? Why is it so hard for you to understand?

    8. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

      Aw shit, another one?

      Tom

    9. avatar RetLEO says:

      Who let the Troll in?

    10. And where is Mexico in that list?

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        And where is South Africa and Brazil on that list?

    11. avatar DaveW says:

      UK has seen no mass shootings whatsoever. TRUE. THEY OPTED FOR EXPLOSIVES. The truth is the UK is having a crime wave and the most common weapon is the handgun. Guns may be banned, but criminals are getting them in numbers and those without contacts are using replica handguns to commit robberies. Home break-ins and auto thefts are rampant.

      Canada only has had only 8 shootings in only 20 years. PARTIALLY TRUE.

      Australia had no mass killings after laws were passed in 1996, TRUE. However, since the ban went into effect, robberies, rapes, and other personal crimes have soared. On the streets, gangs have taken to attacking individuals including tourists. Drug dealers are still having it out with firearms. Criminals have been using Molotov cocktails against businesses, especially minority owned, who will not pay protection. Radical Muslims have also been a problem.

      Japan has seen no mass killings ever. TRUE. They just use gas in train stations. Of course, you’re not talking about what they did during WW2 in other countries where they disarmed the people, as in China where they used the people as human guinea pigs. Having lived in Japan for over 5 years, I recognize how controlled their society is, and which you seem to ignore, just as you have ignored American society which has seriously changed since the period preceding television, and even more so since the 1960s counter culture revolution which was led by the left.

      Singapore has seen no mass killers ever and continues to have to lowest homicide and suicide rates. TRUE. It’s a country where the government does the shooting.

      Now, I suggest you expand your “knowledge” and look at the rates for other crimes like rape, etc, of those countries you have cited based on per capita information.

      Europe hardly sees any mass killings with gun. TRUE, however, “hardly” does not mean never even with harsh gun control laws. When they do, it’s serious. And some European countries, as well as Scandinavian countries, have government issued fully automatic military weapons and ammo issued to people and placed in their homes. All citizens of certain ages are required to be trained. The left seems to reject such an idea.

      While the US sees them almost on a weekly or monthly. TRUE, although few are committed by law abiding citizens using legally obtained firearms, and practically none by those so-called “assault weapons”. Of course, the left rejects the idea of family values supported by conservatives. Our national breakdown appears to coincide with the rejection of those same values. The right isn’t perfect, but it was the left which sought to destroy the “old values” and institute a new society. It is the left which says the Constitution is outdated or just an old piece of paper authored by old White men.

    12. avatar Phil says:

      It seems like a new trend for anti-gunners to come spread their lies on pro-gun websites.

      However, you omit to say that countries with the stricter gun laws are island (Australia, UK, Japan), and it’s always easier to secure borders when the country is an island. Now try to apply this kind of rules on countries with poor borders and observe the result… oh, wait a minute, we actually did saw how it went in Europe with the Paris attacks, the Brussel attack, the Norway massacre, not even mentioning the bombing, etc…

      Also, saying that one country doesn’t have mass shooting is completely useless. It would be more interesting to compare the numbers before and after a gun ban… oh, wait a minute… we can actually compare in UK and Australia. And guess what. The gun bans did change absolutely nothing regarding mass shooting, homicide per firearms… that’s pretty much just the same before and after. However, the violent crimes did increase after the gun bans… since criminals knew they were the only ones to have an (illegal) gun. Once again, it just shows gun control help criminals and terrorists (what anti-gunners Elites and Politics really are).

      So yes, the UK might have less gun violence than the US… but it was already the case before the gun ban. And the gun ban didn’t even improve or change this fact after. Translation, when people keep pointing about the Gun regarding the “Gun Violence”, they should probably start to look at the “Violence” in the first place, and where it comes from. Guns are only tools used to commit the Violence. So it would be more interesting to look at the Violence in the first place.

      Oh wait a minute… but we know where it comes from. Over 80% of the homicide per firearms are the result of gang wars, and criminal activities related to drug trafficking. But most of Elites, Politics and Celebrities will never admit that because they’re often drug addict themselves and even publicly promote drug use… therefore they are supporting gun violence through drug use. And regarding how much drugs are illegal, regarding how much billion are spend for the “War on Drugs”, the US are still the highest drug consumer on earth and the biggest market for Drug Trafficking… and it does represent billion of dollars injected every year in the US economy. So, no politics will never talk about that and will prefer to claim that “Assault Rifles” are the cause of all problems, even though that “rifles” (all kind of rifle from the grand’pa bolt action hunting rifle to the so called evil “assault” rifle) are only representing around 350 death a year, on the 8500-ish homicide per firearms… On a 330 Millions people population, this is no different from any other country, including the UK, France, Australia, etc…

      So the whole belief that if we would ban “Assault” Rifle, it would solve the “Gun Violence” is completely fallacious… because it would probably change nothing (350 over 8500), and considering that 80% are still done by criminals (which by definition don’t follow or obey the law).

      It will only remove civil rights and liberties in the goal of a civilian disarmament agenda… like we clearly saw in all cited countries such Japan, Australia, UK, and right now in all European Countries (where the disarmament happens slowly step by step).

      Assault Rifles are already banned under the National Firearms Act in the US. And everything else said in the media are just lies to confuse ignorant people and make them believe that an AR-15 (which is nothing more than a semi-auto rifle) is an assault rifle because it looks “scary” and because it does share the same “look” as the “Assault Rifles”.

      So tomorrow, if I do put stickers on my car, I could claim it’s a NASCAR Racing Car… And if it’s a Red Car it will be very dangerous because Red cars will make me drive them fast and not respect the speed limits. So we should pass a restriction law to ban all Red Cars (because they look “faster”) and make sure than any car with “stickers” and “race paint” will be banned because they will look like a NASCAR racing car… That wouldn’t make any sense, right? Well, this is just about the same thing for Gun Control and the so called “Assault Weapon Ban”.

      And talking about all countries is completely useless because it doesn’t take one major factor in count which is the social matter. From 1994 to 2004, there was a Federal Assault Weapon Ban… and studies show it did change absolutely NOTHING regarding public safety. And from 2004 to this day, homicide per firearms numbers were still in decline… while the number of guns were increasing considerably. So it just proves once again, that homicide per firearms are not linked to guns laws or number of guns. This is absolutely false. And the only thing we could conclude, like the DOJ did lately, is that the increase in crimes last year was due to the “Fergusson Effect”, which means it’s about the social matters such crisis, wealth inequity, population manipulations and etc… but in no way it has nothing to do with guns.

      When looking at FACTS, the whole anti-guns speech makes no sense… because everything is just based on feeling, emotions and some cosmetics and personal opinions. That’s the whole problem for anti-gunners. Pro-Guns have FACTS with them and we don’t need to lie about it.

      But still, nice try to troll on a Pro-Gun websites with such audacity to deliver so much known lies… It might work amongst ignorant and uninformed people that know nothing about guns and might speak about “multiple clips in a glock” or other stupid comments like that, but it won’t work here. Another problem for anti-gunners is that gun owners are passionate about guns, therefore they actually LEARN their stuff and know their shit.

      Bye bye now!

    13. avatar Jon Lester says:

      I think you’re forgetting the time when a member of Aun Shinri Kyo carried a bag full of nerve gas on a train.

  11. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I have to say I was a bit surprised myself last night. He has always been in for some form of gun control or another for a long time. Just hasn’t mentioned anything by name yet.
    At least he didn’t say outright ban such and such. Although he did heavily imply it.
    Id like to own a Sherman tank but can understand not having a fully armed one.
    I even will admit. Give me a cannon on mobile treads. I can think of a lot of things needing blowing up.

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Jay, All one needs is the means.

      I know a dozen owners of legal Ma Deuces, a few have APCs to go with, and a few also have DDs/AOWs of the serious millimeter flavor.

      A Sherman tank fully functional? Write the check and have a clean record. Nothing stopping you save for green.

      1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

        Twas maybe a poor attempt on a bit of sarcasm by myself there. Ive fired a cannon or 2 at the private range I used to belong to. We couldn’t hit a 4×8 sheet of plywood at 100 yards with it. Cant say Ive shot a 50cal………………..yet.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          ‘Twill be boatloads of fun for you when you get to fire a .50. Any .50. Hopefully never in anger.

  12. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    If I ever wanted to get advice about how to be a New York hoe, I’d consider O’Reilly a good person to interview.

    I don’t care at all about what his views on my liberty are.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Bill O’Reilly is Irish. Is the Irish mafia still a thing in Boston? Perhaps they have lieutenants in New York City?

  13. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Never liked him; he is a pretend conservative, more of a demagogue than any sort of freedom-minded individual.

  14. avatar Piltdown Man says:

    I’m not surprised by the mortars and tanks straw man argument, but “the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right”? Does he really think that the Bill of Rights is about what rights the GOVERNMENT has? I am done with this guy.

  15. avatar Jared says:

    Bill has always been anti-gun. You should have seen his “gun plan” after Sandy Hook.

    At least he admits he is ignorant about firearms and how they work.

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      I’ll give him 5 points of extra credit for owning up to his ignorance, but 5/100 is still a failing grade.

      There are plenty of exceptions, as can be seen with our NY-based contributors here, but unflinching trust in authority seems to be an endemic attitude with most New Yorkers, even the ones who call themselves conservative. Maybe it’s a holdover from NYC’s history of British colonization and large influx of immigrants from countries with a monarchic/feudal system of government, I don’t know, but it’s not hard to spot the inconsistency of people who love to insist on their unique, inborn toughness and rugged independence, and then turn right around and say shit like “I think it’s good for the government to tell people how to live!”

      1. avatar DaveW says:

        Not to mention New Englanders’ claim to be the birthplace of freedom. Not surprising though. The governor of MA sent a letter to the British Commander recommending that the arms and munitions of the colonists be confiscated in order to control them. On the 17th of April 1775, the British Army was dispatched across the state “by land” not “by sea” with orders to confiscate. Paul Revere and others took to horse to spread the warning that the Redcoats were coming. They already knew this was in the works which is why they were prepared. The next day, the British Army came face to face with armed colonists and shots rang out. Thus the “shot heard ’round the world” was heard and the Revolutionary War was begun.

  16. avatar Seth Levy says:

    Bill is just making sure his pet Trump doesn’t look too much like a Democrat

  17. avatar SouthernPhantom says:

    Why should I care what this buffoon has to say? He just demonstrated a striking lack of reading comprehension, not to mention ignorance of the Founders’ intent.

  18. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    I left O’Reilly when he went full retard for Trump. And dissed Ted Cruz. He’s NEVER been anything other than a loud-mouth NY blowhard. That and Greg Guttfeld are(were) pretty much the extent of my Fox watching. Oh and I caught former miss america Gretchen Carlson call for an “ASSault weapons ban TODAY…now all I’m left with is Hannity who is the best of a sorry lot….O’reilly is woefully ignorant about guns. FOX is going to lose LOTS of views.

    1. avatar HP says:

      Former Fox viewer here, bailed on them a few months ago. Will never go back, especially now.

  19. avatar DickDanger says:

    Remember; both sides of the aisle will f&ck you over at the drop of a hat

  20. avatar David P. says:

    Why is it the people who make their living because of the 1st amendement are always the first to turn on the 2nd amendement. Considering I have watched a total of 19 minutes of him through the years I don’t think he will mind if I don’t try for minute 20.

  21. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Headline should read “Bill O’Reilly bails on the Bill O’Rights.”

  22. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

    The amount of media buzz on inviting congress, the POTUS, or anyone to violate the 2A over the past few days should trouble every person on here. Now you even have the supposedly conservative news stations calling for a gun ban. We all know it won’t stop with AR’s. They will chop away at our guns until we can’t even own a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun.

    This is not another Sandy Hook and the libtards are out for blood on this one. Just take a look at some of the articles on the usual liberal rags. I don’t think they are going away and if Hildebeast gets in office, well, we are all hosed. I never thought it would come to this but it looks like we may be nearing a tipping point. Scary times people….scary times.

  23. avatar Mr. 308 says:

    If this ‘no fly no buy’ crap gets rammed through I really fell that’s going to be it. There will be nothing holding them back. It will take time, but there really will be nothing at all left of the constitution in the end. Total state power. Total.

    And the progressives don’t just accept this, they demand it. The same people screaming about Bush, tyranny, Hitler from the Patriot act.

    This is not good. Not good at all.

    1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      Agree 100%. If this gets rammed through you can bet confiscation in the interest of “the greater good” will be right around the corner.

      1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

        I am thinking about more than just firearm related rights.

        *Everything* the state is constrained from doing.

        ‘We need to stop this inflammatory language from x, y, z.’ ‘We need to force company x, y, z to engage in this transaction to maintain the economy.’ ‘We need to force people to work in the x, y, z industry to make sure these products are produced for the well being of the people.’ ‘We need to allow people over the age of 68 to end their lives peacefully, in a glorious state end of life facility for their own humanity.’ ‘We need to take these disabled people away from their parents because only the state is able to truly give them the care that they need’.

        It’s all going to be on the table when this is all done and baked in for a while.

        Constitution clearly means nothing to these people. Here’s a clue. Neither do you Mr. Progressive.

    2. avatar knightofbob says:

      The people who were most opposed to the Patriot Act under Bush were most supportive of it under Obama. When he used executive powers (granted by it) to strengthen and expand it, they applauded. When a Republican congress let this new, enhanced Patriot Act sunset, they cried for blood.

    3. avatar DaveW says:

      Unfortunately, most of the people dissing the 2A and castigating Bush are too young to recall the actions taken by the government following Pearl Harbor. They talk about POW camps where the Japanese were held. They forget that the government constructed living accommodations, food, clothing, medical care, etc, for internees. Many young Japanese men were eventually cleared for military service where their units still distinguished themselves on behalf of the USA. Japanese camps were quite different. The internees were tortured, starved, made to work for Japan, in mines and other tasks. That internees in China were used as guinea pigs for chemical and biological warfare experiments.

  24. I watched yesterday has he did this. I was and still am confused as to why he lost his mind. Time and time again it is shown that taking guns away do nothing. And time and time again it is shown that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Ar-15’s are NOT full auto, they have never been, and the media insistence on the idea that this terrorist had a full auto is perplexing. I guess bill has bought into the media hype, and he no longer speaks for me. My only hope is that someone will educate him on the truth, and the no spin truth about firearms.

  25. avatar DanC says:

    did you expect from O’Reilly? He’s an independent, or so he says, but the more controversy he generates the more his ratings go up. He’ll say what he needs to say to keep the money train rolling…..

  26. avatar GuyFromV says:

    I remember (((Fox News))).

  27. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    I gave up on that idiot a long time ago. Not knowing jack-sh!+ about something never stops him from bloviating.

  28. avatar W says:

    The tiny step forward was that he used to remark that bazookas were commonly available in gun shows. Now he doesn’t.

    Yet, the self-proclaimed historian does not know what regulate means.

    Yes, O’Reilly is a statist/ populist. Our fight is upon us. Again.

  29. avatar 2Asux sucks says:

    He has always been for gun registration

  30. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The Bill O’ Rielly mask came off over 10 years ago when he said to Stuart Rhodes of the oath keepers that there was nothing wrong with government confiscation of firearms after the Katrina hurricane.
    Like most national reporters for the networks he only cares about the 1st amendment.

    The interview is still on you tube.

  31. avatar DerryM says:

    It’s a relief to find-out my reaction of anger and dismay over what O’Reilly said Tuesday was not just me being an angry old man. I had some issues with O’Reilly right along, but found his Show a useful starting point for further investigation. He has a large cadre of devoted fans and whatever I might do won’t affect him, but I have no interest in watching him even sporadically any longer. He’s a certified “pinhead” in my book.

  32. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Why don’t they talk to some politicians and try to get a law passed that says shooting people is illegal?

  33. avatar JB Karns says:

    What a complete and utter surprise…not!

    That walking-talking flappy-lipped fecal nugget is a committed collectivist, Lincoln-cultist and neocon-statist of the first order and it has supported various unconstitutional gun infringements for years.

    He has never been a friend of Liberty or of the Constitution, unless you subscribe to collectivist government’s view of the Constitution and of Liberty.

    Why the ‘news flash’?

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Not a news flash for those who know who their friends really are.

      For the rest, who actually believe the nonsense in his shitty “historical” novels? They may need a wake-up call.

  34. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Did anyone really think O’REILLY was concerned with the rights of “common” people.

    He’s an arrogant ass.

  35. avatar CCDWGuy says:

    Never liked him and almost never watch him and now he is just another New York elitist who has no idea how a lot of this country thinks about protecting themselves with whatever legal weapon they can employ. Maybe some of these jerk commentators should take a trip to the rest of the country, without body guards, to find out what real people’s views are of some of the crap they are marketing. Just ordered 10, 30 round pmags today. They will probably be worth a fortune in the next few weeks though they will never see the light of day outside of the safe.

  36. avatar Ralph says:

    “They have that right in the name of public safety.”

    Repeat after me, O’Reilly you braying ass: “The Federal Government Does Not Have Police Powers.”

    Keep repeating it until it sinks in.

  37. avatar ISChief.Genuine says:

    Bill I guess they finally ground you down. Go ahead and put on the gag, the ball goes behind the teeth. I’m crushed and sad you have pissed on your hero card. Have you really turned poltroon? We don’t have mortars but our military does. I pray that our military doesn’t obey a future President’s order to turn their weapons upon the citizens of this great nation instead of enforcing and protecting the Constitution according to their oath. Then, we will surely be in need of mortars. The second amendment is all we have for our mutual defense against an oppressive government and you want to give it up.

  38. avatar YZAS says:

    It was a cop out to try to ‘play to the middle’. He stated it in very general terms (and with gross terminology errors like ‘heavy weapons’). But what exactly was his proposal? He didn’t say. Ban the ‘AR-15’? What exactly does that mean? We’ve been down this road before, with flash hiders and bayonette lugs, etc. Ban All semi-auto? Oh, but not handguns right Bill? Like someone couldnt have done the same thing with a handgun you moron? So what, ban everything that holds more than 6 rounds? So take us back to the friggin 1800’s with lever actions and revolvers? Does that same rule then apply to Clinton’s personal body guards?? What are you going to do with the hundreds of millions of semi autos people already own? Confiscate people’s valuable assets? maybe start a damn civil war in the process? It only takes one State to not accept the Constitution being pillaged and secede from the Union to start a civil war. And last i checked, crack is friggin banned, and a whole lot of people still smoking crack, still dying from crack, still killing for crack. But hey, because Guns right!

  39. avatar dp4life says:

    This guy fancies himself a historian if you believe his books. Truth be told he’s not a historian and the one book of his I read was full of inaccuracies and half-truths if not outright lies and distortions. His statement about a well regulated militia shows his complete misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment and the founders intent. Well regulated to the ignorant and/or the living document crowd means regulations in the modern interpretation of the word. Well regulated in the 18th century and to our founders meant well trained and armed. Period. Does any logical person believe that after fighting for our freedom and liberty against England’s tyranny that the founders would have proposed regulating (in the modern sense) our ability keep and bear arms? Utterly ridiculous!

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      Actually, under 18-19th century French /English speak. “Well-regulated “; means with precision, with the accuracy of a “Well-regulated timepiece…

  40. avatar VF 1777 says:

    Oh boy, and tonight he’s all wrapped around the axle about alligators, lol. Everyone so obsessed with safety these days – gun control, alligator control, soda control… are all completely oblivious to the real security issues – China in the South China sea, Russia and the US in the worst state of cold war perhaps in my life, North Korea pyscho with nukes, Iran soon to have nukes and stoking a flaming Sunni vs Shiite war, ISIS slaugtering people like sheep, the total disasters that are Syria and Iraq, Pakistan a ticking timebomb, and on and on and on. The world is pretty much in a state of global war, ready to go full nuclear at the drop of a hat. It’s like my wife crying about how the kitchen cabinets are outdated while a freakin cat5 hurricane is bearing down on the house.

  41. avatar peirsonb says:

    You people are always circling the wagons. We should square the wagons, make it harder to surround us…

    1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

      We must construct revetments for our wagons, let our enemies beat their heads against their sloped sides while we pick them off one-by-one.

  42. avatar Achmed says:

    He’s a New Yorker who has probably never fired a rifle in his life. He just doesn’t know.

    Anyway this guy has been a turd forever anyway. His “lookin out for the folks” bs is just that, and calculated to wealthy law n order suburbanites. There’s no principles at work with that guy at all. Fuck him.

  43. avatar Sean in MT says:

    Anyone who says that controlling rifles will have any effect on crime and especially terrorism is speaking purely from emotion in complete disregard for the facts, as evidenced by the FBI’s own crime statistics.

    Sad to say that O’Reilly has fallen into that popular way of arguing from emotion rather than facts and logic, but there we are. This is what passes for a New York “conservative” I guess. I’m done with him and his show.

  44. avatar Angryaz says:

    I think he has a good point… we need access to mortars and tanks the fact that we have limit on our ability to strike fear in politicians is the reason we are where we are in this country today.

  45. avatar JDS says:

    Congress has a right to decide? Since when? We the people have the rights, government shall not infringe those rights, period. Screw the leprechaun. His pro war on drugs stance showed his true colors years ago.

  46. avatar Lou says:

    Why does this surprise anyone??? O’Reilly called for a ban on “assault weapons” and “hi-cap” magazines after Sandy Hook on his show along with his buddy and fake CONservative Michael Savage. It wasn’t until Savage lost most of his (gun owning) listening audience and got thrown into a crappy time slot that he “discovered” the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment from an old “Vietnam vet friend” in Connecticut – yeah right.

    Fox News “star” Grechen Carlson called for an “assault weapon” ban today and I’m sure that Shepard Smith will be next since he’s a lefty and reportedly gay. Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch is anti- 2nd Amendment as well.

    It should be spelled Faux News.

    1. avatar 16V says:

      “Shepard Smith will be next since he’s a lefty and reportedly gay.”

      Seriously, does no one have gaydar at all? Of course he’s as freakin’ flaming queer as Anderson Cooper. How the hell does one miss it? He’s got a long-time boyfriend and everything. Just google him for f-sakes.

      Not that this matters to his view on gun rights and The Constitution. It doesn’t. And just because someone is a homo, doesn’t mean they’re anti-gun (though in NYC it’d pay 100:1). Also doesn’t mean they hate guns. Sorta like Jews – just because most are the complete enemies of The Constitution, doesn’t mean they all are. Dear Leader for instance….

      1. avatar Lou says:

        Understood. I know that there are pro-2nd Amendment gays. What I meant was that he is a left winger on the gun issue already and because gays were killed that he would be more motivated to call for gun control.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          Fair enough, I just never thought anyone believed him to be a “conservative” -regardless of whom he sleeps with.

          I get your point, and it’s definitely statistically valid. I was just offering that despite what the ‘typical response’ is, there are those who are, well, different.

      2. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

        Don’t forget CNN’s resident deviants Downlow Don Lemon and Sally Kohn or MSNBC’s carpet-cleaner Fred Savage, er I mean Rachel Maddow.

  47. avatar Stu in AZ says:

    “the government has a right to regulate militias”

    I see where it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty sure that language is plain. I don’t see where it says that citizens shall only be permitted to bear arms of war if they’re regulated by the government. Especially doesn’t make sense considering that the amendments were put in place specifically to limit powers of the federal government and ensure the rights of the people.

    The “well regulated militia” part was given as an example to support why citizen’s right to bear arms should be protected, not as a restriction. How daft are people to still believe this myth?

  48. avatar C says:

    I just want to go on record and say that my avatar is a joke and i am NOT actually an O’Reilly fan.

  49. avatar Ralph says:

    This is O’Reilly’s brain.

    This is O’Reilly’s brain on crack.

    Any questions?

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Are the pictures any different?

  50. avatar Donald says:

    I cancelled my cable because I couldn’t afford it and really miss Fox News and O’Reilly. I guess I won’t miss O’Reilly anymore.

  51. avatar VaqueroJustice says:

    Can we maybe start a fire O’riley e-mail campaign ?

  52. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    FOX News’ drunken Irish **** and potato-headed elitist. Billdo (pronounced: Bill-Doh), doesn’t get it, the 2nd Amendment, and he never will. Unlike the rest of us this insufferable snob enjoys a workplace that not only has ARMED guards at every entrance but also a special NYPD protection detail outside also as opposed to us he’s chauffeured to the studio each day by an ARMED driver and lives behind walls/fences, tall hedges on his expansive Long Island estate.

    Like FOX News’ MeGYN Smelly, Brit Hume’s former sperm depository, I expect Billdo, will take a hit in ratings over his “gun control” comments, viewership will drop but not to a significant degree to cause him any financial discomfort. Best we turn to Lou Dobbs on FOX Business Network and/or OANN’s (One America News Network’s) Tomi Lahren.

    Beware!

    There are traitors among us, they purport to be our allies but they ARE the enemy!

  53. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I ditched Faux News in 2010. They suck just like the other media outlets, but with a fake conservative bent. O’Reilly, GFY.

  54. avatar Bob321 says:

    Is there anyone in big news media that puts out any effort to learn about guns before they open their damn mouths.

  55. avatar Don says:

    Of course Bill O’Reilly is a statist!

  56. avatar Sammy^ says:

    Bill’s next book? “Killing the Constitution”

  57. avatar Cam says:

    You can tell he was picked on in school and and he so wanted to be popular. Kind of like those social workers that were picked on in high school that became school councilors and pricipals and have ruined the whole generation of safe zoners!

  58. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    It’s all a joke people! This whole thing reeks of fifth column activity! In my opinion, it looks like a concerted effort of politically motivated “put-up-jobs “. Probably by our own intelligence community. Which leads me to believe that the Globalists. Those that support “One-World Global governance ” are on the move…Which I also believe to be a form of militant authoritarianism…One thing stands in the way…An ancient codified document called the US Constitutional-Bill of Rights…It makes us individually unique from citizens of the rest of the world…They obviously can have a 2nd amendment, nor a 4th amendment. Certainly can have “Due Process, or Deprivation of Rights”—-under the 5th, and 14th amendment….How about our 6th amendment….Maybe we need to Quarter local police officers in our homes to make sure we’re not doing anything suspicious…Yeah, I believe we’re heading down that slippery slope pretty darn quickly folks….We the people need to fight the future of the USA!

  59. avatar Sprocket says:

    Islamic terrorists attack us and the elites unite to strip us of our rights. Color me surprised. It simply shows the differences between the two parties are simply window dressing and they are united on the important stuff.

  60. avatar Silver says:

    Are there any Americans who aren’t traitors these days?

  61. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Looks like this time will be a true purity test for pandering politicians and the alleged conservative media.

    I see where that hard looking old bottle blonde Gretchen Carlson is calling for an “assault weapon” ban also.

  62. avatar Anonymous says:

    Bill O’Reilly,

    The second amendment 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.

    1). The second amendment does not say the federal government gets to regulate it. So … You are incorrect on that.

    2). I noted that you are ok on “handguns” but think that congress gets to regulate what other arms we can have. 2nd amendment doesn’t say that.

    3). It is most certainly not the presidents “job” to unite the world against the jihad. Please read the constitution.

    4). Your random bag of opinions that you just dumped out on everyone else, is just your opinions, they are in no way factual or historically accurate.

    5). Your nonsense about congress getting to regulate what kinds of firearms the public may keep and that the states get to regulate what kind of firearms the people may bear is nonsense. Keep and bear is a right not to be infringed upon by the government. That was the purpose, the purpose, of the 2nd amendment.

  63. avatar derfel cadarn says:

    O’Reilly has spent a lifetime being a pompous ass, why should that change now ?

  64. avatar jwtaylor says:

    “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” -Gil Scott Heron – 1970

    You will not be able to stay home, brother.
    You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
    You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and
    skip out for beer during commercials,
    Because the revolution will not be televised.

    The revolution will not be televised.
    The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
    In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
    The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
    blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
    Mitchell, General Abrams and Mendel Rivers to eat
    hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.

    The revolution will not be televised.
    The revolution will not be brought to you by the
    Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
    Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
    The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
    The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
    The revolution will not make you look five pounds
    thinner, the revolution will not be televised, Brother.

    There will be no pictures of you and Willie Mays
    pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
    or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
    NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
    on reports from 29 districts.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
    brothers in the instant replay.
    There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
    run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
    There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
    Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
    Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
    For just the right occasion.

    Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
    Junction will no longer be so god damned relevant, and
    women will not care if Dick finally screwed
    Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
    will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    There will be no highlights on the eleven o’clock
    news and no pictures of hairy armed women
    liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
    The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb or
    Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
    Jones, Johnny Cash or Englebert Humperdink.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    The revolution will not be right back
    after a message about a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
    You will not have to worry about a dove in your
    bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
    The revolution will not go better with Coke.
    The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
    The revolution will put you in the driver’s seat.

    The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
    will not be televised, will not be televised.
    The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
    The revolution will be live.

  65. avatar MiniMe says:

    I’ve always said this guy is d-bag, ever since I listened to one of his moronic diatribes back when “The O’Reilly Report” was just getting started.

    Do not like this guy, at all.

  66. avatar Noraz Cazador says:

    How any conservative or L(l)ibertarian can watch his show or validate anything that he says is a puzzle….he’s never shown himself to be anything but a stereotypical East Coast elitist/statist, living a cloistered life with the money to pay for his own safety and protection. Now he wants to deny us self-sufficiency in our own safety.

  67. avatar JJ48 says:

    If easily-accessible, “heavy” weapons designed for war are the real problem here, then why haven’t we seen mass shootings committed with Mosin-Nagants since the Soviets switched over to AKs?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email