O’Reilly ‘Reasonable’ Gun Law Bluster Doesn’t Factor in Principled Defiance
Article first appeared at Ammoland.com
Ammoland – Adhering to a pattern he routinely employs to make it look like his opinions occupy a sensible middle ground, Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly lulled some viewers into believing his “The Truth About Guns in America Talking Points Memo” on Obama’s executive actions on guns offered solutions both sides could accept. All it really did was further illustrate O’Reilly’s total misjudgment of both sides, and bolster the impression that the guy is basically a clueless blowhard doubling down on a poorly concealed fascist streak. Again.
“Mr. Obama is obviously sincere in his quest for more public safety, but he’s missing the big picture,” O’Reilly assures his viewers. That’s a pretty generous presumption considering that, despite his convenient crocodile tears and Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule at the thought that anyone would think he wants their guns, Obama’s political record on guns has pointed to exactly that conclusion, including supporting bans on semiautomatic firearms and handguns.
That’s not being sincere about public safety, that’s being an oath-breaking, power-usurping authoritarian. That’s being a deceptive opportunist whose motives are personal gain, along with a creepy obsession to “fundamentally transform” America into something he’s never defined beyond “progressive” (collectivist) platitudes.
O’Reilly does score points bringing some perspective into the gun statistics game, and especially on the need to segregate “hard core criminals” from the general public. But while his tough-on-crime rhetoric no doubt resonates with the “law and order” crowd, it runs into two major problems.
If you’re going to tack additional time onto sentences for ALL “gun crimes,” those include acts of principled civil disobedience defying edicts that subvert the supreme Law of the Land. Keep a gun they say you may not or bear it where they say you can’t, and good luck relying on a “shall not be infringed” defense. And as long as we’re talking about the Constitution, perhaps best selling American history-citing author O’Reilly can explain the principles of federalism, and point to the article and section delegating to any branch of the national government the authority to concern itself in such matters.
“Talking Points understands public safety, and reasonable gun registration laws should – SHOULD – be on the books,” O’Reilly continues, directly calling for something Michael Bloomberg himself feels the need to hide behind the less-draconian sounding “universal background check” deception.”But perspective is important, and restricting law-abiding Americans from acquiring guns is obviously unconstitutional.”
Not according to rhetoric from the “progressive” left it isn’t. No one wants to take our guns? Of course they do, and they’re going after them one incremental step at a time.
“The truth is, terrorists are not going to submit themselves to background checks,” O’Reilly correctly observes. “Neither are dangerous felons or insane people. They’re not going to sign any paper when they buy a gun. Do we all get that?”
Yes, some of us do. Some of us have even pointed out (proper) Supreme Court precedentsaying prohibited persons can’t be required to register guns, because that would violate Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
What we don’t get is what requiring the rest of us to rat ourselves out has to do with public safety, and why O’Reilly considers that “reasonable.” Why is it when he uses that word, a scene from The Princess Bride comes to mind? Probably because of what he says next.
“On the other side, the NRA and the gun owners should be reasonable,” O’Reilly declares. “The FBI should background check anyone buying a firearm in America. That just makes sense.”
Why? He just got done telling us the bad guys were going to bypass the system.
“If you are paranoid and believe the government is stockpiling information so they can come to your house and take your guns, that’s your problem,” he sneers. “Your problem.”
No Bill, it’s your problem too. And it’s the problem of everyone who ignores the very real record of abuses and gun-grabs and demands for bans and calls for government to use registration lists to confiscate “assault weapons” (or in both Obama’s and Hillary’s cases, to endorse an Australian-style “buyback” of property the government never owned in the first place).
The problem belongs to everyone demanding enforcement against a growing “I will not comply” paradigm, because some of us are committed to making them try. That defiance has manifested itself through overwhelming civil disobedience in places like Connecticut and New York, with some noncompliance estimates at over 90%. Imagine how it’ll play in the Heartland.
This is hardly the first time O’Reilly has been a pinhead on guns. He used the same MO after the Umpquah killings, where he started out sounding like he had his act together on guns, but then quickly turned, and showed his true colors.
“Now reasonable gun control, the laws about registration, and you can’t have an AK and all that, reasonable people say ‘Yes,” he opined.
Hardly. Reasonable people, some of us would counter, say “No. Your move.”
It’s instructive to note “reasonable” Bill O’Reilly couldn’t see a motive behind the administration’s Fast and Furious “gunwalking” cover-up, whistleblower retaliation campaign and stonewalling, other than to say it was ‘a screw up.” And before that, he thought it perfectly “reasonable” to disarm citizens trying to survive in times of public emergencies like Hurricane Katrina.
It’s also instructive to note this is the guy “progressive” media wants us all to think of as a “conservative.” I guess that way, anyone who doesn’t believe in registering guns can more easily be pilloried as an “extremist” and worse.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.