PDA

View Full Version : O'Reilly's Done


11Z50
04-18-2007, 4:29 AM
O'Reilly spewed some drivel last night that really pissed me off. I considered him to be annoying to watch previously, but now he's done with me. He was advocating "sensible" gun control, saying Virginia gun laws were too lax. He wants magazine restrictions, ammo restrictions, and waiting periods. He went on to say that the people should be able to protect themselves, as the did in Katrina, but "sensible gun control laws" are in order. He might as well donate money to Hillary.

Mr. O may claim to be a conservative, but he's just another New Yorker who wants to solve all our problems with more legislation. Virginia already has sensible gin control laws, which conform with federal law. A waiting period would not have helped in the VT case. The crimes happened 30+ days after purchase of the weapons. The killer had a clean background. While one of his teachers thought he was nuts, nothing was ever done about it. Waiting periods, mag restrictions, ammo restrictions or any other "sensible gun control" measure would have done anything to prevent the bloodshed. The real problem here is that none of the students or teachers killed had the opportunity to defend themselves because the campus is a "gun free zone". One CCW holder with a .38 could have easily ended the killer's rampage.

O'Reilly will not be seen on my television again.

moulton
04-18-2007, 5:18 AM
i cut him out 2.5 years ago when he started spuing garbage about how gun control works....I have since become a libretarian, the two large parties are not in favor of our views

6172crew
04-18-2007, 5:39 AM
I just wrote into his show. He is always saying dont depend on the goverment yet he wants to wait for them to come save you by making a law that only hurts those who would obey the law.

Diabolus
04-18-2007, 6:27 AM
I agree with most of Bill O's views; however, his stance on the gun issue last night was totally wrong. This maniac had the gun for 5 weeks before he committed the massacre. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent these types of crazies besides giving people access to weapons to defend themselves.

It will be interesting to find out the exact timeline of events that led him to this ending, I wonder if he found out 5 weeks ago that his girlfriend was cheating on him and this was a calculated attack or he just happened to purchase the gun then find out.

Bill should have spent more time on the behavior of Cho and the schools reaction as setting fires in the dorm should have resulted in his expulsion. I donít think we should attack Bill because we disagree on his viewpoint.

ElCUBANO
04-18-2007, 7:37 AM
Yea I like his positions on child molesters and illegal aliens. But last night he pissed me off.

brando
04-18-2007, 7:41 AM
Culture Warrior my ***. He's no better than all of the other pundits riding the gravy days of our current polarization.

billym
04-18-2007, 9:46 AM
When did Bill O'Reilly ever had any credibility?:confused:

Super_tactical
04-18-2007, 1:06 PM
Did any of you actually think BO was a conservative?

stag1500
04-18-2007, 1:25 PM
I stopped watching him back in September of 2004 when came out and supported renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. What a moron! :mad:

xenophobe
04-18-2007, 1:29 PM
Did any of you actually think BO was a conservative?

Exactly. He hasn't ever claimed to be conservative... He calls himself a "traditional" and won't answer the question if he's actually a conservative.

Super_tactical
04-18-2007, 1:32 PM
I quit listening to Michael Savage as of today.

Yesterday on his show, he said he believes we need more gun restrictions. Only "trained" LEOs and military should be allowed to carry. I keep hearing "I am the only one in this room qualified..."

That's it, no more for me.

DSA_FAL
04-18-2007, 1:40 PM
I've stopped watching him well before last night. I've always thought he makes very poor arguments. But I think he's a phoney anyways so this doesn't surprise me.

xenophobe
04-18-2007, 2:17 PM
I quit listening to Michael Savage as of today.

I stopped listening to that windbag a decade ago.

Surveyor
04-18-2007, 2:54 PM
I stopped listening to O'Reilly after he said that he would cut off his son if he so much as smoked a joint. I wonder what would happen if his son had a real drug problem and needed his father to show him the way to recovery?

That's not what you'd call unconditional love. A classic example of a cold hearted republican.

I guess it's time that I officially register as a Libertarian.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
04-18-2007, 3:38 PM
I stopped watching him back in September of 2004 when came out and supported renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. What a moron! :mad:

+1, same for me. He went on about how people shouldn't be allowed to own "machine guns" so the AWB was good and should be renewed. Not only was he on the wrong side of the argument, he wasn't even familiar with the topic he was discussing.

Plus, he has what seems to be porn music for bumper music when he comes back from commercials at :20 past. It's the worst, cheesiest music in the world. Kenny G would have been much better.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-18-2007, 3:55 PM
The killer had a clean background. While one of his teachers thought he was nuts, nothing was ever done about it. Waiting periods, mag restrictions, ammo restrictions or any other "sensible gun control" measure would have done anything to prevent the bloodshed.

I'm not so sure about that.

Va. Tech Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit (http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278)

I'm for very little gun restriction, but I dont want insane people to have guns.

Bishop
04-18-2007, 4:14 PM
I can only listen to BO for 3 consecutive minutes before having to turn him off. That's how long it takes him to say something idiotic.

He's all over the place in his views, and inconsistent in his special treatment for certain people when he doesn't like them. Additionally, most of what I can remember about his radio show is him hocking his wares.

"blah blah blah no spin golfballs blah blah blah no spin windbreaker blah blah blah culture warrior"

I get pissed when I hear anyone call him a conservative, and set them straight!

Bishop
04-18-2007, 4:15 PM
I'm for very little gun restriction, but I dont want insane people to have guns.

Once you says that, we'll see the fuzzing of the line between insane and sane. If someone wants a gun, they're going to get one. If they're prohibited by law, they'll just get one illegally. Gun control doesn't work. At all.

Super_tactical
04-18-2007, 4:24 PM
Once you says that, we'll see the fuzzing of the line between insane and sane. If someone wants a gun, they're going to get one. If they're prohibited by law, they'll just get one illegally. Gun control doesn't work. At all.

ding ding ding!!

FreedomIsNotFree
04-18-2007, 4:25 PM
Once you says that, we'll see the fuzzing of the line between insane and sane. If someone wants a gun, they're going to get one. If they're prohibited by law, they'll just get one illegally. Gun control doesn't work. At all.

So you are saying that there should be no restriction of the mentally ill from buying firearms?

Super_tactical
04-18-2007, 4:30 PM
Good news!

Sean Hannity is doing a whole piece today on gun control!

Turn it on. He had the author of "More guns, less crime" on. I SH much respect for doing this. I'm glad we still have a voice in "conservative" talk radio.

metalhead357
04-18-2007, 4:31 PM
I'm not so sure about that.

Va. Tech Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit (http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278)

I'm for very little gun restriction, but I dont want insane people to have guns.


Nor do I want the insane to have them....but as already noted they can and DO get ahold of them; rather than ban guns...I'd rather have sensible people have them too & then the crazies----- wont act so crazy.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-18-2007, 4:33 PM
Nor do I want the insane to have them....but as already noted they can and DO get ahold of them; rather than ban guns...I'd rather have sensible people have them too & then the crazies----- wont act so crazy.

I dont recall EVER saying all we need to do is pass a law that forbids the insane from owning guns.....I just think it should be an obvious hurdle.

We should have both.....people that are 5150 should not be able to buy guns....and law abiding folks should be able to CCW, just about anywhere, to protect themselves and others from the insane that fall through the cracks.

ZapThyCat
04-18-2007, 4:57 PM
He wants magazine restrictions, ammo restrictions, and waiting periods

Interestingly, none of those would have stopped this massacre.....

Bishop
04-18-2007, 5:57 PM
So you are saying that there should be no restriction of the mentally ill from buying firearms?

I thought I was clear. Gun control does not work. At all.

Honestly, if a crazy person buys a gun and goes nuts and starts shooting people, he should be put down quickly. There may be loss of life, but legislation does not work. Period. Any attempt to infringe upon a right that "shall not be infringed" is just the first step toward more control.

It's not pretty, but it's the truth.

Dr. Peter Venkman
04-18-2007, 6:02 PM
I dont recall EVER saying all we need to do is pass a law that forbids the insane from owning guns.....I just think it should be an obvious hurdle.

We should have both.....people that are 5150 should not be able to buy guns....and law abiding folks should be able to CCW, just about anywhere, to protect themselves and others from the insane that fall through the cracks.

The 5150 law specifically for firearms is already in effect. How Cho slipped through was probably due to a bad shrink or a bad judge; pick your poison.

Rem1492
04-18-2007, 6:14 PM
I stopped watching him back in September of 2004 when came out and supported renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. What a moron! :mad:

I remember this program vividly, he totally cut off the NRA guy and bloated out "people should not be able to own rocket launchers and machine guns" as his closing segment then left it at that.


uhhh, wow. I don't watch him nor buy his books anymore.

cartman
04-18-2007, 6:43 PM
The 5150 law specifically for firearms is already in effect. How Cho slipped through was probably due to a bad shrink or a bad judge; pick your poison.

5150 is a ca thing. In some states its not part of the background check. At least in Connecticut where I bought my first gun I know it wasn't part of the background check.

50ae
04-18-2007, 6:46 PM
It's on the paperwork in VA, that's for sure. I just don't know how the reporting system works in getting the information into NCIC.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-18-2007, 6:56 PM
I thought I was clear. Gun control does not work. At all.

Honestly, if a crazy person buys a gun and goes nuts and starts shooting people, he should be put down quickly. There may be loss of life, but legislation does not work. Period. Any attempt to infringe upon a right that "shall not be infringed" is just the first step toward more control.

It's not pretty, but it's the truth.

To have someone say they would allow a "crazy" person to buy a gun is quite amazing to me.

Bishop
04-18-2007, 7:13 PM
To have someone say they would allow a "crazy" person to buy a gun is quite amazing to me.

Odd. To say "Shall not be infringed" means, "Shall not be infringed except for common sense gun laws" is quite amazing to me...

Bishop
04-18-2007, 7:36 PM
The framers had a vision of this country. Once we started taking guns away from law abiding citizens and restricting their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones, problems arose that would not exist were the framers' vision kept true. I honestly believe that if 1/5 of people were free to be armed where ever and whenever, this would be a different nation. I think that nation would be a better one.

People like to say that the times have changed, and that the constitution is really more of a set of guidelines, but I think the framers had perfect vision and clarity, and that its our eyes that have changed.

11Z50
04-18-2007, 8:46 PM
Going back to my original post, if just one, perhaps two CCW's were present, Mr Cho's rampage would have ended immediately. He was not prepared for armed resistance, and counted on being in a "gun free" zone.

It's ironic to me that in making an area "gun free" one actually makes it more dangerous. Mr Cho knew he would not face any armed resistance. Nobody but the Campus Cops would be armed, hence the chains and locks on the doors. He had plenty of time and a herd of sheep to deal with. He knew none would be capable of offering a fight. So, in a "gun free" zone, 32 lives were lost. None had the means to defend themselves. Being a gun-free zone made it a more favorable target.

NYC has been "gun free" for almost 100 years and folks still seem to be getting plugged on a daily basis.

"Gun Free" means "shoot me" as far as I am concerned.

Matt C
04-18-2007, 8:48 PM
He was on there at 9 and I heard mention of the "toxic gun culture":rolleyes: . That guy pisses me off sometimes, but FN is still wayyyy better than CNN.

Infused1
04-18-2007, 9:19 PM
To have someone say they would allow a "crazy" person to buy a gun is quite amazing to me.

I have not posted in this forum but I have been a member for a while. I dont usually jump into these debates, but this does it for me. Im a conservative who is tired of both parties and this kind of rhetoric. Bloomberg is now talking about legislation and using his own money to fund advertising campaigns against guns, might as well been elected as a democrat. Its insane to sit there and think we can regulate and keep guns from those who wish to do harm. Its insane to say we want freedom of speach but fire people like Don Imus (dont agree with his statements), its insane to actually think we can keep an insane person from purchasing a firearm by pushing a database. To sit there and say, someone who has mental issues should not be able to purchase a weapon goes onto a bigger issue. Should our government be keeping tabs on its citizens like this in the first place?? I dont know if many of you know but there is a national ID card act that could be going into effect to regulate all of us and have us all put into a computer system. The courts have ruled that the governent and local police agencies do not have to be responsible for our safety, so whos responsibility is it? If they are not responsible, why should they be keeping tabs on us?? Lets look further than gun control. Gun control is another political agenda period. Do you think a gang banger would come after a normal Joe who has a gun?? NOPE, typically only crazy people do this kind of stuff and if we are willing to drop some rights because a so called crazy person might get a weapon, then we should drop all of our rights. What if the government terms a normal Joe crazy because hes in a drunk stuper one night?? Think further people. People, remember when the Brady Campaign started, Brady was shot by a 22, not a so called evil rifle. My point is this, gun control is just the start, to control any aspect of it, even with the threat of an unwanted purchaser, are you willing to give up your freedoms in other aspects?? I do not believe insane people should own guns, but I also dont think our government should be telling us who is and isnt and who can and who cant. Look who is in our government, how many of them would take us out for the belief they hold??? Are you ready to go into a national database? Just imagine the other things that will be brought against us in a database, our political party, our purchases, our everything will be in the open for whoever has power at that point in time. Scary isnt it. Sorry my post is out of order, I dont have a lot of time to type, very busy.

Teletiger7
04-18-2007, 9:21 PM
i cut him out 2.5 years ago when he started spuing garbage about how gun control works....I have since become a libretarian, the two large parties are not in favor of our views

+1 Libertarian here too.

Cato
04-18-2007, 9:39 PM
Gun control is UNAMERICAN.

RKBA is the 2nd Amendment; not the 15th or 20th. It's in the Bill of Rights after all! And the Amendments are in order of importance (more or less). The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms is a major part of our national identity. We are a nation of free men; not subjects of state or monarch.

Mr. O should apply for Vatican citizenship and stop calling himself an American. He blindly accepts the Vatican's politics; and preaches them daily. I'm Catholic too but I know where to draw the line between dogma and politics.

burl broderick
04-18-2007, 10:18 PM
Infused1: Welcome. Nice post.

Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than a smirky, well paid stooge for some big government dooshbags. "Gun control" is actually a relatively small issue, friends. Please stick to your guns, however, but also reflect more about where the money is flowing & what your sense of ethics tells you .

Infused1
04-18-2007, 11:45 PM
Infused1: Welcome. Nice post.

Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than a smirky, well paid stooge for some big government dooshbags. "Gun control" is actually a relatively small issue, friends. Please stick to your guns, however, but also reflect more about where the money is flowing & what your sense of ethics tells you .

Thanks, the problem I am having right now watching the news is this,,, we have pro gun rights people saying "why didnt they catch this guy in the system!" Thats ridiculous, that system is what we are fighting in the first place. I dont want a criminal or crazy guy getting a gun, but that is just life and statistics, how many gun crimes happen per capita? How many crazy people are per capita?? that would mean we would need a database of people who had mental issues and so on and so forth bringing the thought police yet again. Pretty soon the kid who thought gangs were cool when he was 12 and hung out with them would be on a list regardless if he hada normal adulthood, soon anyone who has the cops called on them even without committing a crime will be put on a list, etc. etc. So to go to one extreme always ends up at another. This is thought police people, not much better than telling us we cant say something on our minds, which is also under attack. Its not just guns under attack, its our complete freedom, when you have Don Imus getting fired for his stupid comments and the same company paying people like Al Sharpton (whos said far worse over the years and recently) to speak on the issue we have a problem. ( I dont like Imuse by the way, but what was done to him was wrong) If everyone in this country owned a gun, crime would go down period, even with the criminals and crazies owning them. There are too many good hearted people in this country who wont just sit by and watch people be victimized if they werent living in fear. A gun is not always the right weapon or tool to use for some situations, but if people felt empowered and knew they could actually have a chance, more people would hold others acountable for the crimes they commit. The isrealy teacher who was shot on campus, gave his life to protect his students, if people these days did not live in such fear and realize that violence is nature and you have to fight to live, someone might have stepped up and tackled that kid. That teacher understood that and I have to say he did a heroic thing that is not seen in this country often. A lot of that has to do with what people are fed by our government and the false belief that we will always be protected and to just sit there and accept it. Ive seen this kind of talk on the forums, here about why didnt the system catch it, he shouldnt of had that in the first place, that guy should have called the cops before he went out with a gun etc. It not about that, its about our natures right to defend ourselves and others. I was driving home one day, there was 3 (future gang bangers) 12-14 year old boys beating the crap out of an 8 year old neigbor of theirs. I stopped my car, and looked around to see if anyone was watching, there were tons of kids, adults and cars just watching and going back to their business. I couldnt believe it, so I turned around and got the kids to stop, they told me where to shove it. etc. etc but they left. The 8 year old was crying, had some scrapes and bruises and I was in shock as I watched more than 5 adults just sitting there watching it without doing a thing. Its fear, they dont have protection and were not willing to endanger themselves. As for Bill O'Reilly, hes a Boston boy, he grew up in gun control central, he has been programmed just like most of the people out there. Most of these TV people are, I even watched Pat Buchanan talk about it, but he was weak and not tooo convincing, almost like he was nuetered. Oh well, TV ratings, un-educated people and power hungry officials are in our way.

Infused1
04-19-2007, 12:01 AM
Oh, and one more thing on O'Reilly, he has come out in support of gun control before and I dont think he will change that stance unless something changes it for him. He is a "Whats good for the majority" type and if gun control could help, Im sure he'll back it. Unless of course he has changed his mind in the past few months and realized that is a dangerous way of thinking.

jjperl
04-19-2007, 12:09 AM
he has some good points once and a while but last nights remark about more gun control was ridiculous and just stupid.

radioactivelego
04-19-2007, 2:54 AM
People actually watch these "journalists?"

Dr. Peter Venkman
04-19-2007, 12:07 PM
Infused, what you say is a slippery slope argument. While it does paint a good picture on what the gun-grabbers are pushing for banning evil guns, I think you are jumping to far-reaching conclusions by saying "crazy guy one day, average joe the next" in regards to being on a database. I for one would like the government to track the wackos out there who have ever been a 5150 here in the state or elsewhere (danger to themselves or others). I like the current system in place where under 8102 W&I that they cannot get their firearms back until a judge has found them to be sane. That's the best fail-safe we can get without going top-heavy on legislation that infringes on other gun owners rights (i.e. removing them completely).

However, I do understand your position in saying that it would be relatively easy for a gun-grabber or politician to say that gun owners or those who associate with "group x" have to be kept on a database for the safety of the people. Today it is not so much the 'thought' police as it is "lets keep tabs on this guy thoughts, not actions. Until infringment of firearm rights is based on thoughts and not actions (attempted suicide, attempted damage to others, et cetera) I don't have a problem with the 5150s being on a database. I believe the state must protect its citizens from those who have attempted to hurt others or themselves before without infringing the rights of the law-abiding; from what I've seen, the 5150 W&I tries to do just that.

Gun laws, however, are another matter in California.

luvtolean
04-19-2007, 12:10 PM
Being conservative does not mean being pro-gun.

Giuliani is right there with him...

ViPER395
04-19-2007, 2:01 PM
Being conservative does not mean being pro-gun.

Giuliani is right there with him...

Guiliani is a conservative?