Bill O'Reilly tells John Stewart his two solutions for all gun crime

[DougC]

Bill is interviewed on Stewart's podcast and 4:30 min into gets into gun control. If Stewart would listen Bill tells him how to solve all the gun crime with modern sporting rifles (aka assault weapons) and who should prosecute all crimes committed with a gun.



p.s. I have read many of Bill's 'Killing...' book series and look forward to new one 'Confronting Presidents' on Sep 10th.

 

[RankAmateur]

Bill is interviewed on Stewart's podcast and 4:30 min into gets into gun control. If Stewart would listen Bill tells him how to solve all the gun crime with modern sporting rifles (aka assault weapons) and who should prosecute all crimes committed with a gun.



p.s. I have read many of Bill's 'Killing...' book series and look forward to new one 'Confronting Presidents' on Sep 10th.

Can't tell from your presentation of the video if you support what Bill O'Reilly proposed or if you're tossing it up here to illustrate Bill's leftist thinking?

So, for those who have not watched the podcast, Bill O'Reilly proposes to "solve" "gun violence" with ARs by:

1. Having each (and all) states put stricter gun laws in place that would require individuals seeking to acquire these "military style weapons" (his words) to provide justification for their need to have one (like writing an essay) and then allow the state to determine if the justification is adequate. and,
2. Make all "gun crimes" federal (take prosecution of crimes involving firearms out of the jurisdiction of the states, and transfer it automatically to the federal government).

So, Bill buys into the idea that "military style rifles" are intrinsically different than others, that they are somehow strongly associated with "gun violence" and "gun crime", and that adding an "essay justification" requirement to the purchase process for LEGAL purchase by LAW ABIDING citizens will somehow meaningfully affect the rate of "gun crimes" committed with firearms.

Bill offers this as his solution in response to a part of the discussion about the failed assassination attempt on President Trump. Stuart's lead is in asking O'Reilly if the fact that 'a 20 YO, clearly having mental issues, was able to walk around with an AR-15', gave Bill "pause" (the description of Crooks is as described by Stuart). As is so common with the gun control crowd (like Bill O'Reilly) he proposes a solution that would have NO EFFECT on the incident creating the discussion. How would having Crooks' father write an essay 13 years in the past, have any effect on his son being given permission to take the weapon to the range 13 years later? UNLESS, the state would have denied his father permission to purchase the AR in the first place - which is, of course, their desire. No ARs = no crime committed with ARs. The logic cannot be broken.

 

[Mohawk600]

I used to like O'Reilly...............................now........**** him

 

[Grumps21]

In his FOX days, he was a loud mouth who consistently talked over his guest commentators. I tolerated it because at the time his matter of fact presentations seemed logical for the most part.

He kind of went away after being let go by FOX, and the few times I’ve seen him on other shows, he’s unwatchable to me. Pompous know it all and twice as obnoxious as he was on FOX. I don’t know if his conservatism was just an act or not, but he’s already gotten crossways with Bongino - calling him a right wing fanatic or something along those lines. I think he’s trying to be relevant again and is chasing the wind to do so.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Can't tell from your presentation of the video if you support what Bill O'Reilly proposed or if you're tossing it up here to illustrate Bill's leftist thinking?

So, for those who have not watched the podcast, Bill O'Reilly proposes to "solve" "gun violence" with ARs by:

1. Having each (and all) states put stricter gun laws in place that would require individuals seeking to acquire these "military style weapons" (his words) to provide justification for their need to have one (like writing and essay) and then allow the state to determine if the justification is adequate. and,
2. Make all "gun crimes" federal (take prosecution of crimes involving firearms out of the jurisdiction of the states, and transfer it automatically to the federal government).

So, Bill buys into the idea that "military style rifles" are intrinsically different than others, that they are somehow strongly associated with "gun violence" and "gun crime", and that adding an "essay justification" requirement to the purchase process for LEGAL purchase by LAW ABIDING citizens will somehow meaningfully affect the rate of "gun crimes" committed with firearms.

Bill offers this as his solution in response to a part of the discussion about the failed assassination attempt on President Trump. Stuart's lead is in asking O'Reilly if the fact that 'a 20 YO, clearly having mental issues, was able to walk around with an AR-15', gave Bill "pause" (the description of Crooks is as described by Stuart). As is so common with the gun control crowd (like Bill O'Reilly) he proposes a solution that would have NO EFFECT on the incident creating the discussion. How would having Crooks' father write an essay 13 years in the past, have any effect on his son being given permission to take the weapon to the range 13 years later? UNLESS, the state would have denied his father permission to purchase the AR in the first place - which is, of course, their desire. No ARs = no crime committed with ARs. The logic is cannot be broken.

Thanks for putting it in writing.
Not gonna watch a 45 minute video.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Anyone who thinks they can change human behavior at large to eradicate crime is dumber than a box of methtards.

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

 

[gasgas]

Permiting almost every thing we use is not freedom.
Basically saying someone how has a means of retaining property; real estate, money, bartering; and and wanting something, say buying more land, equipment , personal items; has to ask someone (the Government)( person who has a government job usually has nothing but a job) to approve or reject any request or transactions is basically a end of FREEDOM
So we are back to the old saying ;

I am from the government and I am here to help you.

People need to ask people from Cuba, Russia or other socialist countries how they like there government.

 

[BigRed]

Clown show.

 

[leVieux]

<>

I decided years ago that Bill O’Reilly is a NYC pompous ASS not worth listening to.

My matter how many lifelines Hannity throws to him.

This ridiculous conversation just reinforces my prior assessment of him.

“Shall not be infringed!”

Laws should target known criminals, not regular citizens nor inanimate objects.

I dealt with drug addicts for years, long ago; remind me just how effective the ‘’War on Drugs” has been on preventing illegal drugs from being readily available ?

Meanwhile, the Harris County Soros D A has released 960 “Felon in Possession”, CRIMINALS, meaning already illegal gun possession, on personal recognition (no cash) bonds ! Some of whom were caught with ‘’machine guns’’ according to TV Ch. FOX26, Houston.

I rest my case.

leVieux

<>

 

[RankAmateur]

Civics are not taught anymore. Most do not know or understand the structure of our government and how it's supposed to work. Even conservatives need to be constantly reminded of what "Natural Rights" means. The exercise of the natural right to self defense apparently requires some permission from someone in the government. The same conservatives who argue that position give full-throated support to the natural right to free speech. They state that 'the best response to speech you don't agree with is more speech'. Oddly, they don't apply the same rubric to the second amendment. Shouldn't their position be: 'the best response to guns you don't agree with is MORE GUNS'? By the way, the OTHER discipline that is no longer taught is logic.

 

[DougC]

Can't tell from your presentation of the video if you support what Bill O'Reilly proposed or if you're tossing it up here to illustrate Bill's leftist thinking?

So, for those who have not watched the podcast, Bill O'Reilly proposes to "solve" "gun violence" with ARs by:

1. Having each (and all) states put stricter gun laws in place that would require individuals seeking to acquire these "military style weapons" (his words) to provide justification for their need to have one (like writing an essay) and then allow the state to determine if the justification is adequate. and,
2. Make all "gun crimes" federal (take prosecution of crimes involving firearms out of the jurisdiction of the states, and transfer it automatically to the federal government).

So, Bill buys into the idea that "military style rifles" are intrinsically different than others, that they are somehow strongly associated with "gun violence" and "gun crime", and that adding an "essay justification" requirement to the purchase process for LEGAL purchase by LAW ABIDING citizens will somehow meaningfully affect the rate of "gun crimes" committed with firearms.

Bill offers this as his solution in response to a part of the discussion about the failed assassination attempt on President Trump. Stuart's lead is in asking O'Reilly if the fact that 'a 20 YO, clearly having mental issues, was able to walk around with an AR-15', gave Bill "pause" (the description of Crooks is as described by Stuart). As is so common with the gun control crowd (like Bill O'Reilly) he proposes a solution that would have NO EFFECT on the incident creating the discussion. How would having Crooks' father write an essay 13 years in the past, have any effect on his son being given permission to take the weapon to the range 13 years later? UNLESS, the state would have denied his father permission to purchase the AR in the first place - which is, of course, their desire. No ARs = no crime committed with ARs. The logic cannot be broken.

Well done and insightful, RankAmateur. Yes, I was tossing it out on forum in hopes someone like you would pick up on it. Sort of report and forum members decide.

NO, I don't support Bill R's ideas to solve gun crime. SCOTUS has made several decisions that would make unconstitutional any laws that require asking for permission to own a modern sporting rifle. Of course 2A advocates are wading through multiple state/federal court cases to stop this where it is now required. Which the state/feds are using our tax dollars to fight.

And no way the federal government needs to be only one to prosecute gun crimes. I am glad the laws are on the US Code books now but better for states to do the trials. If they do the trials. Case in point: there are many many cases of fraudulent purchase of firearms and lying on Form 4473 that Hunter Biden got convicted of recently. But the feds don't prosecute them. And I don't think any US Attorneys will prosecute a street criminal who robs a convenience store with a gun. No kudos for the effort.

 

[DougC]

Thanks for putting it in writing.
Not gonna watch a 45 minute video.

The gun segment discussion between Bill and John is only 10 minutes from 4:30-14:30 but the summary above does a good job explaining the talk.

 

[General Zod]

Can't tell from your presentation of the video if you support what Bill O'Reilly proposed or if you're tossing it up here to illustrate Bill's leftist thinking?

So, for those who have not watched the podcast, Bill O'Reilly proposes to "solve" "gun violence" with ARs by:

1. Having each (and all) states put stricter gun laws in place that would require individuals seeking to acquire these "military style weapons" (his words) to provide justification for their need to have one (like writing an essay) and then allow the state to determine if the justification is adequate. and,
2. Make all "gun crimes" federal (take prosecution of crimes involving firearms out of the jurisdiction of the states, and transfer it automatically to the federal government).

So, Bill buys into the idea that "military style rifles" are intrinsically different than others, that they are somehow strongly associated with "gun violence" and "gun crime", and that adding an "essay justification" requirement to the purchase process for LEGAL purchase by LAW ABIDING citizens will somehow meaningfully affect the rate of "gun crimes" committed with firearms.

Bill offers this as his solution in response to a part of the discussion about the failed assassination attempt on President Trump. Stuart's lead is in asking O'Reilly if the fact that 'a 20 YO, clearly having mental issues, was able to walk around with an AR-15', gave Bill "pause" (the description of Crooks is as described by Stuart). As is so common with the gun control crowd (like Bill O'Reilly) he proposes a solution that would have NO EFFECT on the incident creating the discussion. How would having Crooks' father write an essay 13 years in the past, have any effect on his son being given permission to take the weapon to the range 13 years later? UNLESS, the state would have denied his father permission to purchase the AR in the first place - which is, of course, their desire. No ARs = no crime committed with ARs. The logic cannot be broken.

Not going to give a click to Jon Stewart. He can go choke on a dick. So I appreciate the summary of Bill O'Reilly pissing away the last shred of respect he ever might have deserved.

 

[Mohawk600]

Not going to give a click to Jon Stewart. He can go choke on a dick. So I appreciate the summary of Bill O'Reilly pissing away the last shred of respect he ever might have deserved.

John Stewart IS a dick...........and apparently O'Reilly has also become one.

I actually went to an O'Reilly event years ago where Jesse Waters opened for him and it was pretty good. Waters still worked or him at the time.

 

[leVieux]

Civics are not taught anymore. Most do not know or understand the structure of our government and how it's supposed to work. Even conservatives need to be constantly reminded of what "Natural Rights" means. The exercise of the natural right to self defense apparently requires some permission from someone in the government. The same conservatives who argue that position give full-throated support to the natural right to free speech. They state that 'the best response to speech you don't agree with is more speech'. Oddly, they don't apply the same rubric to the second amendment. Shouldn't their position be: 'the best response to guns you don't agree with is MORE GUNS'? By the way, the OTHER discipline that is no longer taught is logic.

<>

I independently made sure that my own children understood Civics, History, & our Constitution(s).

I have also taught already highly-educated ‘’new Americans’’ in those areas.

leVieux

<>

 

[DoubleDuty]

History proves violating the Constitution does nothing but give the government more power than they are allowed. He has just shown the Constitution means nothing to him.

 

[RankAmateur]

History proves violating the Constitution does nothing but give the government more power than they are allowed. He has just shown the Constitution means nothing to him.

You are spot on, sir. That fact actually reinforces/proves the founder's intent of creating a defining document that specifically LIMITS the powers of the government. As such, essentially any violation of the constitution results in the government overstepping its defined power boundaries. For this reason it's essential for citizens to understand that the constitution GIVES them no rights. The constitution is intended to define federal structure and create boundaries/prohibitions to prevent that government from infringing the natural rights its citizens already and naturally possess.

It is not uncommon to encounter folks who DO know these things, but who fall into the language trap of referring to specific rights as "Constitutional Rights", which inevitably leads to the logic trap of considering that if the right was defined in (by?) the Constitution, then it comes FROM the Constitution.

Have a conversation with someone asking them "in what situation do you NOT have the right to defend your life from an attacker?" This usually produces some fumbling or an outright exclamation of "never". That reaction is the natural/moral/ethical conclusion defining a natural right. Discussion of the other constitutionally protected rights usually produces some waffling in response. Your right to speech could lead to hurting someone's feeling, or offend their sensibilities - so, there should be some limitation on that right. If that waffling gets turned back to the discussion of the right to life, they often try to define some hierarchy of the rights (some have no limitations, and some do). Difficult discussion, usually with no absolute agreement. It is, however, the fertile ground that eventually leads to the Bill O'Reillys who consider themselves "conservative" but are perfectly willing to truncate their (and everyone else's) rights for x reason.

 

[leVieux]

You are spot on, sir. That fact actually reinforces/proves the founder's intent of creating a defining document that specifically LIMITS the powers of the government. As such, essentially any violation of the constitution results in the government overstepping its defined power boundaries. For this reason it's essential for citizens to understand that the constitution GIVES them no rights. The constitution is intended to define federal structure and create boundaries/prohibitions to prevent that government from infringing the natural rights its citizens already and naturally possess.

It is not uncommon to encounter folks who DO know these things, but who fall into the language trap of referring to specific rights as "Constitutional Rights", which inevitably leads to the logic trap of considering that if the right was defined in (by?) the Constitution, then it comes FROM the Constitution.

Have a conversation with someone asking them "in what situation do you NOT have the right to defend your life from an attacker?" This usually produces some fumbling or an outright exclamation of "never". That reaction is the natural/moral/ethical conclusion defining a natural right. Discussion of the other constitutionally protected rights usually produces some waffling in response. Your right to speech could lead to hurting someone's feeling, or offend their sensibilities - so, there should be some limitation on that right. If that waffling gets turned back to the discussion of the right to life, they often try to define some hierarchy of the rights (some have no limitations, and some do). Difficult discussion, usually with no absolute agreement. It is, however, the fertile ground that eventually leads to the Bill O'Reillys who consider themselves "conservative" but are perfectly willing to truncate their (and everyone else's) rights for x reason.

<>

Very well-put; thanks!

Those of our current tyrannical regime just don’t want for most voters to understand these important principles.

leVieux

<>

 

[FireInTheWire]

We'll do it live!!! **** IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!