After talking about how "far left loons" want to use the Colorado tragedy to talk about the need for new gun laws, Bill O'Reilly proposed a new gun law. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell explains in the Rewrite.
Rewriting Bill O'Reilly on gun control
-
Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:18 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Do you sir know why MY good friend B. is WRONG about assault weapons ONLY being in the hands of military? I shall tell you. Because we have to deal with Drones in civilian life as well. There are many military applications that have made the "leap" from war to civilian life yet we are now to believe that drones are different than assault weapons? Hmm. There is also a difference between semi automatic and fully automatic but MY good friend B. is taking a dangerous step towards voters.
Those five to ten percent of voters that are the actual "deciders" of this election are very diverse in beliefs. They are quite obviously NOT left nor right in the traditional sense of the word. And guns are important to most of them. Do a poll I dare you.. ; ]]
Furthermore if we the public are FORCED to except the transition of drones exclusively used against our war time enemies and to KILL them then why are guns different? They are not. because even though private citizens may not control privately drones they are USED on the private citizen.
Life can NEVER be guaranteed. Only God can guarantee life or evolution if you choose not to believe in God or Gods. ; ] The constitution SURELY can never guarantee life because it is a piece of paper not a doctor or God or life giving breath. It is a piece of paper. ; ] You can NEVER guarantee what can be taken so easily from you. NEVER. So you sir should also rethink your argument because life is simply not something one can ever guarantee. Ever.
@mowdy5gs.. ;]
Cheers
Also I have to ask.. Did the shooter USE all of his rounds? How many rounds were actually discharged? It only takes one per person so where would it stop? If one wishes to shoot an AR- 15 at a range or on private land must one shoot a box of 100 50 20 10 at a time? Before having to stop, order more wait for them to come days later and then picking up his good time with kids family friends? etc? How about the drive to the store miles away? What if you choose to use more then one gun and have multiple guns to shoot that day? Hmm. Indeed. ; ]
It is a fine line the fact that we went to war for the wrong reasons in one country. A lie. Should we ban ammo or guns for the wrong reasons when there are no right reasons to speak of? Banning ammo or weapons will NEVER curb the killing of people it will never stop an Oklahoma bombing. Once MY good friend has lost his credibility in the media for having switched to trying to ban ammo or guns the right will crucify him thereby solidifying there followers to the ready. And we would be mired further to the brink in extremist politics and more do nothing government when we are soooooo close to ousting the right entirely. ; ]
Guns are politics weather you wish them to be or not. As Ice T says have you ever needed to protect yourself from police? Do you know anyone who has? Hmm. Maybe you should THINK hard about that question. Now then I do not belong to the NRA nor do I care what it is they choose to believe or not believe. But! I believe in capitalistic rights to make money off of death such as funeral homes and morgues and I believe in the right to make dollars off of fire arms and the making of. I know sooo many democrats that love there semi and fully automatic rifles. More undecided that do as well.
Trying to paint anyone who does as right, or NRA is wrong entirely and to not understand that killers are the problem is quite misguided. Not only will it hurt politically but it is mis diagnosing the problem entirely. Blaming what you fear instead of WHOM you fear. And the not knowing whom those folks are until they are must be terrifying for you I'm sure. Let us be honest here, fear makes one lash out at the first thing the first symbol of what one fears. It then makes you fear that. But we are human beings able to reason and think logically and in doing so I am far more concerned about the study of human defects and personality traits to identify then guns.
So let us FORCE everyone to own guns and then people will learn what the tool is does and is capable of inflicting. The majority of gun owners in this country are responsible do not kill do not misuse there weapons and out number those who kill and misuse them. Majority rules in this democracy. So THEN let us reason, let us reason that by majority we will FORCE every citizen to own automatic weapons and at least one thousand rounds. ; ] I am all to serious in my adroit thought of asinine thread.I would far rather be on the side of the up standing responsible column then in those ranks of the fearful knee jerk reactionary.
Why should the minority party hold hostage our majority in the senate and our landslide winning President? So then why would we give in to a small minority by number of citizens to ban ammo or guns? Hmm. Indeed. ; ]
Cheers
post script ; ]
The argument you made about a shoe bomb A shoe bomb causing the scrutiny of every airplane or jet passenger there fore banning ammo or guns makes sense because ONE guy tried to shoe bomb a plane and couldn't is wrong. Well, that is an argument FOR not banning guns or ammo. Why ? Because in YOUR argument you opine how the man in question even if successful in his perpetration of blowing up his shoe would NOT have blown up the plane by any stretch of the imagination.. ; ]
Thereby nulling and voiding your own argument and oopsing [all to coin many new phrases] the commentary you made against [ cant believe I'm saying this] Bill. Because making the mass change there entire lifestyle at the airport because the idiotic actions of one man is wrong. It is not justifiable and neither would be using the argument that because we would do such a thing for one instance of not happening shoe bombs we should ban ammo or guns. ; ]]
Flight was once upon a time enjoyable and quite the experience. Now it is a hassle and for most a dreadful horror worth by manys [not mine] logic, banning. The actions we are now forced to take on planes because of the tragedy many years ago is in the name of safety. As though we are all children incapable or our own safety. It is always in the name of safety. But that stems in many cases from fear.
Is 4000 confiscated guns a win? Or a show in contrast of gun use being up a loss? Hmm.
Cheers
Weak, Larry O,,really weak--either your listeners are really stupid or just want a mouth to listen to. I have no doubt Bill O'Reilly would happily debate you since your recent attack his latest comments on gun control. To try to twist the fact that New York and bloomberg's utter failure at controlling guns with the 4th toughest gun laws in the country is just laughable. New York's gun violence is up 20% year to date and they have seized 4000 guns because its working? I have never watched your show before and maybe would watch some more for the comedic flare but you really nauseating-- you really should not be on TV.
Sandlapper, do you think this LOON would ever have the guts to sit across the table and debate Bill. I'd pay big bucks for a front row seat to that one. Unfortunately it would never happen because Larry wouldn't have his team of creative spinners (I mean writers) with him to put the babble he spews into his head. Larry chose to "spin" Bills comments to categorize his suggestion as gun "control", which it isn't. Simply reporting the purchases he described is not "control". . . it's not deciding if the person can or cannot purchase. It mearly reports that purchase. AND, Larry says he's for Ammunition control over gun control because guns are useless without ammunition. Ummmm. . . .isnt' the opposite true also? Nice point Larry!! Like everybody else, I don't watch this show either. I was on my way to Fox and saw Bill on the channel and assumed I was there only to find Larry trying to be clever and smug with his feable attempt at "catching" Bill with contradictory comments. If Larry ever listend to himself maybe he'd come to the conclusion most others already have. . . he's a pinhead. Be a patriot Larry and retract your accusations that Bill was talking about gun "control". And, if you do, please email me so I can tune in becasue I can't stand watching your show.
Dave, I have a better name forO'Donnell, not pinhead, penishead. The guy is an idiot. He must talk in front of a mirrow everyday before he goes on just to see what he sounds and looks like. And the answer is, sounds and looks like a penishead. They, MSNBC, really has a bunch of idiots, Matthews, Fat Ed, Maddow, and don't forget Rev. Al.
There's really no comparison as to who the pin/penis heads are. You that can sit and listen to the spin of Faux News, need that type of hyperbole and propaganda so that you have a reason for the hate and paranoia. The truth hurts your ears. Facts make you furious...fast! You can believe what you want to believe. But this site is where like minded viewers of MSNBC exchange thoughts and opinions. How dare you spout your madness here? Trolls go home. And remember, people with guns are dangerous.
Gun control goes in, gun control goes out. You can't explain it.
With all that drama about Gun Control (and Ammunition Control, I suppose) going on predictabily after the Colorado attrocity, the good citizens of Colorado are swarming to the Gun Shops in that state to get their firearms before the do gooders shut them down. 43% increase in gun sales, so keep it up, O'Donnell, keep harping on this theme, as I own stock in serveral US Companies that manufature and sell firearms (and ammunition, as in the case of Remington Arms USA).
But to your post, O'Reilly lives out in the wilds of Long Island amonst the ultra elite homes and neighbors, and his knowledge of this subject is as poor as yours, so as to the DUMB Factor, its pretty much the Pot calling the Kettle Black, here.
1) Heavy Weapons: in the military definition this would be .50 caliber sniper rifles, .30 and .50 caliber machine guns, meant for stationary mount use, not shoulder fired weapons. Throw in the Grenade Launchers and shoulder fired rockets and you have that catagory pretty much covered.
2) 3,000 round of ammunition is not a lot. It is recommended by experts that a handgun owner should shoot regularly at a range at least once a week, and 50 to 100 rounds a week is not to much to cycle through a firearm that might be needed to protect one's life and property and the lifes and property of their family or neighbors. It's certainly possible to go through 3,000 rounds in a years time for a pistol or rifle. Five 10 round clips for a .40cal semi-auto pistol (or 9mm, or .380 cal or .22 Rimfire) makes up that 50 round minimum pretty much. And as to an AR-15 rifle, that comes with 5 round, 10 round, and 20 round clips as standard fare, one can get up to 3,000 rounds in a years worth of practice and plinking and hunting for varmints from groundhogs to coyottes, and even antelope and small deersized game, especially at long distances. That's what the Colorado shooter purchased online, 3,000 .40 cal rounds, and 3,000 .223 cal rounds.
It's not my preference: I prefer a .22 revolver with 9 shot capability for plinking and occasional target and small game hunting, and a .327 Federal Magnum in a 6 shot revolver as my home/trail handgun and a .32 H&R Magnum in a 6 shot revolver for my carry concealed handgun. 20 gauge pump shotgun with a 6 round capability (blocked to 3 for hunting use), a 22 Rimfire/20 gauge Over/Under Campers Companion single shot Rifle/Shotun firearm for sporting small game hunting, and a .44 Remington Magnum Lever Action Carbine for deer hunting in the Northern New England States/and for Home-Camp defense, and the 20ga pump shotgun with a rifled slug barrel for deer in Southern New England states. That's my arsenal!
mowdy5gs- REALLY?!! Drones? So your justification for assault rifles plaguing American society is future drone use? I am against drone use as well, but the notion you believe the public should be able to stockpile assault rifles as a response to drone use is CRAZY AT BEST. Are you planning to try and fight the government because of drone use? Are you planning to try and shot a drone down? Should the public be able to buy stinger missiles to try and combat drone use?
Good luck with your fantasies. If you own any guns, they should be removed immediately because you are clearly mentally unstable in your thinking.
Larry, you are correct that Bill got it wrong on a subject he apparently knows little about, but it is also a subject you also know nothing about.
You can say that again.
Larry, you are correct that Bill got it wrong with his comments, but you are also wrong on your views on gun/ammunition control.
Well, I didn'y mean that you could say that again litterally, you know?
AK47s belong in the hands of soldiers...........citizen soldiers.
Gee...where did you ever hear the one, Pat? Obama? Oh yes, too bad he isn't aware that it has been our adversaries in the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan Wars and the war on Terrorism that are armed with the AK-47s. And in their semi-auto foremat with 5 or 10 round clips these AK-47s on our markets since the breakup of the old Soviet Block are finding there way into the hands of wild hog and deer sized game hunters, as the .30 cal cartridge thay fire is closely similiar to the old .30-30 Winchester round, but chambered in semi-auto fire in a very rugged firearm.
Grandpa, didn't you say the 9/11 terrorists (why'd you capitalize that word, anyway?) were using box cutters to arm themselves with Boeing 737's and such...
BTW, don't let Fuzzie fool you with his firearms "expertise." He's strictly a bullshipper. Not that it has any relevance to discussions here, but in the accuracy department the AK-47 is a joke. And military rounds were designed to disable the opposing soldiers (that's why they used full metal jacketed rounds and didn't object to the Geneva convention on that subject). A wounded soldier makes more demands on enemy logistics than a dead one.
He doubtless finds it easier to address this subject instead of politics and critical thinking, but the real howlers from this Eastern tenderfoot are those "pumpkin roller" calibers he's bragging about... Shoot, a .327 Magnum? Hell, we let our girlfriends shoot .357's on first dates (loaded with .38 specials if need be); Grandpa speaks about a .44 magnum easily enough, but only if it's a rifle. Out here in grizzly country, guys who carry .357's are generally the ones who get et first... Or trampled by a moose they didn't see while fishing... Even guys with .41 magnums get kidded...
People do like the .223 in the civvy version of the M-16, but it's strictly a jackrabbit cartridge (the old M1 carbine was good for that too; I used one in my misspent youth, but the science guys learned me real fast not to kill predators). Of course our jackrabbits are nearly as big as those Eastern whitetails Fuzzy road hunts...
As for more than five rounds in a magazine, man, no wonder you need so much practice if your aim is that bad. Most of the shots out in the Wild West (Google up my old assistant scoutmaster, Hartt Wixom, if you doubt me) are cross canyon two to three hundred yard shots, whether the quarry is mule deer or elk. A thutty-thutty won't reach out that far, and the small, flat shooting .22, .243, and .25 caliber center fires won't knock an animal down at close range. I know; I lost my "first deer" using a neck shot at 30 yards with a .243... Went right through, knocked him down, and then it got up and ran away when I went to field dress it. Old man down the hill with an '06 nailed him and claimed him... I still have a resentment...
My stuff is as irrelevant as Grandpa's, of course. The real issue is why is the NRA pushing for C&C laws (where guns are invariably left for kids to find) and not teaching firearms safety? Couldn't be because they've allowed themselves to be taken over by paranoid wingnuts, could it?
Seriously, Fuzzy, I work in what is statistically one of the most dangerous jobs there is, and I've never had a problem. It's a good thing though, I don't have a C&C permit... My road rage might've got the better of me once or twice...
Uhh. full metal jacketed bullets, as in the military .223 per Geneva convention does not wound as well as a frangible non protected lead bullet, Cab Driver. That is some nonsense on your part. The rationale for the 50 grain cartridge in semi-auto and full auto rifles is that 1) soldiers can carry a lot more of them, 2) they have less recoil and more inherrant accuracy, 3) they are better at longer distances, especially in rapid fire, than the older .30 calibers cartridges of the M-14 and M1 Garrand.
And there is no comparison in the ballistics of the M1 Carbine (100 grain .30 cal low velocity round) and the .223 ammunition that is being used on antelope and small deer. If your limited experience is Mule Deer, than I can understand your reluctance to see a .223 being used on that heavy bodied annimal.
A .327 Federal Magnum fires an .85 grain hollow point at high velocity, giving an energy on target equivalent to something between a .38 Special P (police round) and a .357 Magnum, with all of the recoil of .38 Special. It is more accurate, and easier to shoot than the .357 Magnum. And it also chambers both the .32 H&R magnum (my carry handgun) and the old .32 S&W Olympic revolver shooting cartridge, and an old Police and small game handgun round. Simplifies my handgun ammunion needs, and gives me versatility of use.
I have no grizzlies in New England, and while Moose have been sited in CT, they are not huntable in this state. But if I had the choice of a firearm to protect myself from a rampaging Bear, Moose, or Pit Bull, I would not want the .44 Magnum Revolver, but a Rifled Slug/Buckshot mixed series of rounds in a Shotgun. Each to there own, Cab Driver. Each to there own. And when I was in the Northwest, my house and trail revolver was a .44 Special, and the cartridge in that caliber was also chamberable in my .44 Magnum Carbine. Simplicity.
I can see why no one watches O'Donnell's show.
how can you jack asses onthe right defend owning assult rifles.
See above posts, Frank. Americans have adopted military arms from the .45 coltsand .45 ACP revolvers and .45 ACP and 9mm semi-autos from World War II to the .223 AR-15s of the Afghanista, Iraq, and Virtnam Wars, just as they did the 30-40 Krag battle rifles of the Spanish American War, the .30-06 and British .303 battle rifles and German 8mm Mausers of World War I and II, and the M1 Carbines and M1 Garrand of World War II, and with some M14 and M1As from the VietNam early war period for civilian use in also for target shooting and with modifications for hunting use too. A long history of that in the US of A, Frank.
frank..after i served in the Army, i always wanted to get my own AR-15 strictly for target shooting. I know plenty of ex military that have them. The difference being is that being trained to use one safely is a heck of a lot different then some mentally unstable whack job bent on murder because of some reason we may never get to know..Anyone with knowlege can convert a semi-automatic weapon to full auto, it is not that hard. Some nut can walk into a hardware store and buy a few Propane tanks for a grill and a few gallons of gas and do some real damage, we dont do a background check on anyone as of yet who purchases these items, or do we limit a young gangmember from buying hunting knives. Where is the public outcry with hundreds getting killed each week from a gang member by a knive or gun? It makes the news for a day then on to the next murder.
Over 1,000 gun shooting incidents in Chicago alone this year, and the laws are there to get the guns off the streets and out of the hands of gangbangers, but it takes a mayor and a police force to do the job. That is what they are lacking in Chicago, not the gun control laws. The laws are on the books...they just need enforcing.
Hey there Larry - When are you going to obtain some " NEW "guests that have their " OWN OPINIONS " instead of being rehearsed as to what to say on your PATHETIC PROGRAM ( especially rewrite - what a joke - REWRIGHT <REWRIGHT <REWRIGHT ). I'II say it again & again - IF Romney wins - you , Ed -( Big Loser WISCONSIN ) , Rachel , Chris (the loser just like his Philladelphia Phillies) & Tiwhani Brawley -Duke 7 Sharpton -NO REPUBLICANS WILL BE A GUEST ON ANY OF YOUR SHOWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( By the way - any news on Jessee Jackass Jr. ?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!)
The interesting thing about Bill O'Reilly's biggest supporters is that they're almost entirely illiterate.
Larry's viewers ( the few ) are young kids who know nothing about life, they havent matured yet. MSNBC builds on this in hopes of corrupting their minds with far left ideologies. Have a nice day...
Uh Bill,
I was born smack in the middle of the baby-boomers, can tell you where I was the day JFK was murdered, and watched the moon landing on a black-and-white TV because the folks had five kids and wouldn't spring for color...
I also voted for Nixon, Reagan, Ford, and Bush 41... And I screamed at Clinton for not keeping his pants on, not because it was such a terrible thing, but by then I realized the worst thing he did was bring out the "moralists," and sure enough, that's what happened. Bush 43 made a liberal out of me because the Republicans who helped enact the Civil Rights laws were long gone, and frankly, my job has taught me to read people really well.
Bush 43 was an idiot, and his dad was a damn fool for "underwriting" his candidacy and giving us the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (who "picked himself" as Vice President). And Bill O'Reilly...
Well, O'Reilly doesn't understand how the tides work, and I do... And we've been a more prosperous country when we haven't stuck our schlongs into other country's business and invested American lives needlessly. You realize we lost the Vietnam War, right?
Those "far left ideologies" you're dissin' were mainstream during Eisenhower's Administration, and the McCarthyites--the grandparents of today's Tea Bagged sorts--were the freak show. People on the right can't even believe in conservation without being smeared and labeled tree-huggers by the global-warming deniers.
And you know this from watching the poisioness pap spewing left wing nuts at MSNBC on the boob tube, Cab Driver?
I didn't realize that literacy was a requirement to watch TV or listen to the radio, Michaelin, even if your thesis on the O'Reilly viewers was correct, which it certainly is not.
Lawrence O'Donnell is wrong on so many fronts...It hurts.
First of all if ONLY Right Wing Loons watched O'Reilly his ratings would be a sliver of what it actually is, kind of like O'Donnells and the rest of MSNBC's. If you are a regular viewer of O'Reilly than you would know that while his views are somewhat slanted Conservatively, he frequently comes out in favor of common sense and fair play as opposed to the strict Far Left Progressive views of those on O'Donnells MSNBC. And it is for THAT reason that O'Reilly routinely mops the floor with his competition.
As for the Colorado tragedy, he is right on the money in his view that the Progressive political movement is absolutely using it to further THEIR views on guns in this country. I live in Chicago, arguably the city with the strictest gun laws in the country and they don't work. Every week 10-20 murders or more, scores of people wounded including innocent little kids. Criminals don't obey laws Mr O'Donnell.
Off topic a little bit, but O'Donnell just talked about Rush Limbaugh and drumsticks.
Here is the thing. Rush Limbaugh *IS* a closet homosexual. If there is one subject he doesn't talk about much - is gay issues.
- If you do an image search on Google or Yahoo "limbaugh home interior" - you'll see the home of what a very rich gay person would have.
- Had Elton John sing at his last wedding (gotta look somewhat normal to his listeners... but Elton John?" And keep in mind, at one point - Elton John WAS married to a woman.
This story and words from Limbaugh just seems to confirm this.
So was Rush married to a woman, 4 0f them to be exact. And each one younger and better looking than the predecessors. Turns them over like automobiles. Kind of ruins your stupid gay thesis, hmmmm"
by the way Frank, what makes you so sure its only those on the right who just own assault rifles, or has a NRA membership, or any other rifle/pistol? it seems Political offiliation only matters to those who THINK they know whats best for the rest of the population, that works for both Political Parties
"The pen is mighter than the sword", and for those that would wield a sword or the pen irresponsibly, I say lock them up in the pen and throw away the key!