Bill O'Reilly is No Friend of the 2nd Amendment

[ericire12]

Here is the video:

The more I think about this the more it makes me irate. Because of the pulpit he has, what O'Reilly was saying in that video is traitorous. What he is preaching to his very substancial audience is endangering this country should we ever, God forbid, be faced with a tyranical govt that wishes to impose their will on us.

The declaration of "State of Emergency" is declared all the time. Look at the recent North Carolina thing where they got too much snow and needed to declare a "State of Emergency". It happens all the time for weather related occurances so that federal dollars can be handed out for assistance.

Are you telling me, Mr. O'Reilly, that next time there is a blizard or a flood that Govt should be able take away everyone's (except criminals and the Govt) guns? Heck, that sounds like a great way to me to "get guns off the streets". Are you telling me that "State of Emergency" is good enough for us to surrend all of our God given rights -- lets remember that during Katrina Neagan suspended civil rights and Miranda rights while also taking away all those guns. What happens when someone like, Oh I dont know.... Barrack Obama decides that the gun violence in America has reached the point that it should be declared a "State of emergency"?  Are we to let him take all the guns in the nation and destroy them while at the same time burning down all the property, plant, and equipment of the nations gun manufacturers? Yeah, it might be deamed unconstitutional later on down the road, but that wont get all our guns back..... That wont remove the Tyrant from office and put him in prison (It never has). Additionally, without a well armed malitia how is the Supreme Court going to enforce the verdict? How are the American people supposed to get back control of their country?

Good grief this guy makes me sick..... hmmmm I wonder how Keith Olbermann(D) feels about this subject

[WatchManUSA]

You need to keep in mind that TV and radio people like O'Reilly are, in a sense, "political entertainers."  They make their money by creating controversy.

The interview went off track right from the beginning.  Specifically, O'Reilly began with an amalgam of the Oath Keeper's 1st and 4th point, "We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people" and "We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law..."   (To see the orders go to - http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/ )

Mr. Rhodes could have helped himself out by breaking apart the two points.  Instead, Rhodes charged ahead equating hurricane Katrina to "bad weather."  I don't care what measure you have the aftermath of Katrina was not about bad weather.

Things further got off track when O'Reilly talked about a "state of emergency" and Rhodes was talking about "martial law."  O'Reilly made a crucial mistake by linking and equating the two issues.  Legally they do not mean the same thing.  Neither O'reilly nor Rhodes had a clear basis for the discussion.

That being said, one could conclude that O'Reilly can situationally justify disarming law abiding citizens.  However, from this clip I'm not sure he was making that point.  He could have been trying to highlight the Oath Keeper's "Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey" and trying to understand the meaning.

Look at the video clip a couple of times and look at the Oath Keeper's web site.  I think this was simply a botched interview on the part of O'Reilly and Rhodes.

[ericire12]

You need to keep in mind that TV and radio people like O'Reilly are, in a sense, "political entertainers."  They make their money by creating controversy.

The interview went off track right from the beginning.  Specifically, O'Reilly began with an amalgam of the Oath Keeper's 1st and 4th point, "We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people" and "We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law..."   (To see the orders go to - http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/ )

Mr. Rhodes could have helped himself out by breaking apart the two points.  Instead, Rhodes charged ahead equating hurricane Katrina to "bad weather."  I don't care what measure you have the aftermath of Katrina was not about bad weather.

Things further got off track when O'Reilly talked about a "state of emergency" and Rhodes was talking about "martial law."  O'Reilly made a crucial mistake by linking and equating the two issues.  Legally they do not mean the same thing.  Neither O'reilly nor Rhodes had a clear basis for the discussion.

That being said, one could conclude that O'Reilly can situationally justify disarming law abiding citizens.  However, from this clip I'm not sure he was making that point.  He could have been trying to highlight the Oath Keeper's "Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey" and trying to understand the meaning.

Look at the video clip a couple of times and look at the Oath Keeper's web site.  I think this was simply a botched interview on the part of O'Reilly and Rhodes.

When a State declares a "State of Emergency" it is giving iteslf powers that are very similar to martial law..... Martial Law itself does not exist under Louisiana State Law. If you are suspending Habeas Corpus (suspending the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary) you are essentially declaring Martial law. Military involvement in domestic law enforcement can not happen without congressional approval. Katrina was different to some extent because most of what happened involved National Guard which is state run..... But it is still a situation where govt was denying second amendment rights, civil rights and Miranda rights  and those troops were not following their oath.



*What pisses me off the most about this O'Reilly thing is that after Katrina he was touting the hurricane as a posterchild for why Americans should have the right to keep and bear arms. I cant find the video, but he went on and on night after night about how this will spell the end of the gun grabber movement because it was such a shinning example of how guns can keep us safe when govt cant. He talked about how it was total anarchy for three days after the storm, and how those who did not have weapons at their side were helpless against the badguys who were free to do as they wished. And he was right. Thats why there were so many news stories about people with ARs by their side and people being interviewed saying that they would shoot to kill anyone who tried anything -- and even the far left was not saying anything about it. They where in a desperate situation..... but here is a question for O'Reilly: What if Nagan declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the storm (They knew it was going to be catastrophic) and sent them out to confiscate everyones guns 3 days before the storm? Where would everyone have been then?




I also take great offense at the fact that O'Reilly called it "a pretty extreme position" to say that it is unconstitutional to disarm law abiding citizens.

**O'Reilly is going to take a lot of heat for this..... all the other blogs that are covering this and especially gun forums are really fired up.... he is gonna get a lot of mail about this.

[twyacht]

**O'Reilly is going to take a lot of heat for this..... all the other blogs that are covering this and especially gun forums are really fired up.... he is gonna get a lot of mail about this.


Yes he will. At least a clarification of his stance on the 2nd Amend. regarding LAW-ABIDING FOLKS, who ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

[ericire12]

Well he just addressed it at the end of his show... he cited Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and said it was legal (Supreme Court said it was not) and then he said what they did during Katrina was legal (also decided by the Supreme Court that it was not). He seemed to say that we have a judiciary that will keep us safe from all this kind of stuff and apparently he does not care that it will be well after the fact.

What a piece of ****!

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

Seems to be opening up a can of worms on this one. 

[Woody]

O'Reilly is a paid shill.

[tt11758]

O'Reilly is a paid shill douchebag.

Corrected for accuracy.   

[Pathfinder]

You need to keep in mind that TV and radio people like O'Reilly are, in a sense, "political entertainers."  They make their money by creating controversy.

Exactly the same thought I had. I had this idea that he has sensed the country's shift away from bho and toward more historical values on the part of the American people, and in order to create controversy, spouted off in opposition to the 2A.

Could it be that simple?

Naw, he is a paid douche bag, jerk and a$$hole. We do not need anyone with his platform spewing this kind of nonsense anymore. No Shrug Zone here.

[metamurph]

One also has to keep in mind that there are many interpretations of what "conservative" means.  There are many who may  be fiscal conservatives (often in name only or as nicely put by Beck, they just cut out the tax portion of tax and spend) that essentially support the idea of a nanny state or that people may need to be controlled.  And often with our "entertainers" they are simply that not a paid shill as in being paid off but they are paid to have a big audience, they are paid to drive advertising dollars and they will position to whatever helps that cause. 
I love a lot of the writing and general content of Michael Savage, he too seems to have had alternating positions on the 2nd amendment - lining up on the side of gun control for "assault rifles" and now having the "2nd Amendment Commemorative" KelTec 9mm that he advertises (as the greatest quality gun known to man) but in generally you will find that he is solidly behind the 2nd amendment and he blows O'Reilly away when it comes to belittling basic scumbag left wing schmucks. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRjGJB7COX4
And here he says it is time for and AWB http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5193   I read this and I wonder where his head is at.  The police can't own these weapons?  They are coming from Mexico?  Did he just have a bad hang over this day? 
The real problem isn't with these entertainers, it is with our politicians who often seem to also believe that they are entertainers or at least play the role of "helping us their poor constituents" and love their adoring public.  Ugh.

tom