O'Reilly Factor Blasts gunowners as selfish..

N

nralife

New member
O'Reilly Factor Blasts gunowners as selfish..


oreilly@foxnews.com

Second example, I have repeatedly said that the

Clinton administration is demagoging the gun issue

but that handgun registration is needed. Well, many

gun owners will not even consider the argument that

is being made by some of the finest criminalogists in

the world.

If handguns are registered than any American found

carrying one without the proper credentials can be

immediately prosecuted and punished harshly.

Do you have any idea what kind of help this would

be to law enforcement? What kind of progress could

be made against dangerous criminals who possess

handguns illegally? Come on, think about it. The

Clinton administration won't do it but a more

responsible leader would push for tough penalities

against gun criminals and handgun registration

would give the cops a tremendous advantage. That

would be a huge step towards negating gun crimes.

But this kind of logic gets lost in all the rhetoric

thrown about by people who don't want to

compromise. It is all about what I want, what is good

for me, not what is good for us.

So talking points is going to hold the position that

the greater good is always accomplished by personal

sacrifice. Millions of Americans have been killed

fighting for their country -- they made the ultimate

sacrifice. At least we can do is drop our egocentricity

and look at the big picture in all things.

And that's the memo."

Tell his Hindass what you think,

oreilly@foxnews.com
 
Here's the email I sent to Mr. Oreilly:

Geez, so all we have to do is register all handguns and their owners and all our handgun related problems would eventually be solved. Is that what you are saying? I'm just curious.

So, regardless the fact that laws have been on the books in several states giving just that information to law enforcement, doesn't count. Consider New York, where it is illegal to own a handgun not registered. Or Washington DC.

So, according to your theory, then those places have less handgun crime, right? I'm so glad that you have refuted years and years of criminal statistics compiled in those two cities. They followed your advice, only they took it one step further. They kept handguns out of the hands of responsible gun owners. Only people who aren't obeying the law are causing all those handgun crimes to be
committed. And yeah, all those criminals just 'forgot' to tell the police that they have an illegal handgun in their possession. So, maybe we need to give criminals a course in civic responsibility and memory improvement. That way, they'll remember to register their illegal firearms. And if they didn't at least they would feel bad about it.

[This message has been edited by Wallew (edited May 17, 2000).]
 
(posted and mailed)

Mr O'Reilly,

You claim that gun owners are selfish for fighting attempts at registering them and their guns.

Well, sir, I'm selfish. I want to protect my SELF. Gosh, how utterly horrible that is, to be SELF-reliant and not want to bow and scrape for official permission to exercise my natural right to SELF-defense. How terrible it is to not want to rely on the police to protect me, when they can't, and aren't required to. How frightful that I believe that no one needs to know about my guns, especially some petty bureaucrats who couldn't make it in the public sector and so have to go to work for the government.

Get it through your thick skull, O'Reilly: registration leads to confiscation. Always has and always will. Don't believe me? Read up on history, up to and including present-day California, where registered owners of SKS rifles are having their guns confiscated. Look at Connecticut, where the Turn-In-Your-Neighbor law has already illegally snared several harmless people (after assurances that the law would rarely be used and NEVER abused). Look at New York. Washington DC. Chicago. All places where registration was immediately followed by confiscation.

You, sir, are a coward and a traitor.

Sincerely, etc.

(whew)
 
(mailed)

Mr. Oreilly;

Sir, when are you going to learn?

You mention in today's talking points that handgun registration would, "...be a huge step towards negating gun crimes." You also say that this is being supported, "... by some of the finest criminalogists in the world."

Gun registration is used for only one purpose, the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. Why? Criminals are already forbidden to carry and own firearms. The US Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot compel convicted criminals from registering their weapons because that would violate the 5th Amendment to the Constitution
(I know, that pesky Constitution getting in the way of fighting crime again.)

So you would only be able to register law abiding citizens. And what purpose would this serve? We already know that criminals with prior convictions commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes. We already know that more than 99% of all firearms will never be used in a crime. We already know that firearms are used to prevent a violent act nearly 7000 times per day by law abiding citizens. Why make it easier for the government to harass law abiding citizens, whom are clearly not the problem? Why make it easier to confiscate the legally owned firearms in this country?

Furthermore, you yourself have seen the missuse of documents by our government. Do you honestly believe that the registrations of law abiding citizens would not be used by burecrats illegally? You know it as well as I do. The only way to affect crime in this country is the emprisonment of criminals. Not harassing the citizens with risky schemes
about gun registration.

Sincerely,


~USP
 
May 17, 2000

Dear Mr. O’Reilly
I just read the article you wrote about selfish gun owners and thought I would take a moment to give you some things to think about. Obviously no gun owner is going to change your mind. You stated we are selfish and that we don’t see what is good for the group. This sir is America as you and so many have forgotten the Constitution guarantees INDIVIDUAL rights not group rights. If you want group rights there are at least two countries left that espouse to that theory of operation of the collective. China and Cuba await your arrival. You said we are going against the “finest criminologists in the world”. Who are these people? Please provide a list. All that I know who have objectively studied the situation (Mr. John Lott) have come to the conclusion that when law abiding citizens are armed and the criminals know it violent crime goes DOWN!
All arguments aside, I have a proposal for you. Since you obviously appear to believe that person doesn’t have the fundamental right to defend themselves (the police will protect you?) and that banning and registering guns will do the trick. We will pick a city that has followed the recommendations of those you call “the finest criminologists in the world”. We’ll say D.C. Now, here are the rules, I will select the slum for you to walk through, after dark (hey don’t worry there’s a law to protect you, it’s against the law to own a pistol) make sure you are wearing your finest clothes and jewelry, and carry a big mesh bag of cash. Ok, I’ll break the rules and let you have a cell phone so you can call the police (but hey, you won’t need that cause there is a law) but worse case I am sure they will be there immediately to serve and protect. Just let me know when your ready to do that I’d like to film it.
Fortunately for you and me at present it is still not against the law to speak our mind, but before you do next time I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to fool people with “everyone should, and statistics prove”. The facts are that violent crime is down for the 8th straight year. Remember the collective awaits you!
Thank you for taking the time to read my e-mail.

Shelby, N.C.

Hey did I do alright guys!
 
Well, as long as we're posting our responses...


Mr. O'Reily,

"If handguns are registered than any American found carrying one without the proper credentials can be immediately prosecuted and punished harshly. "

This is already a law... except in Vermont. In that state, they trust their citizens to use their weapons for good. So far, they're right.

This issue comes down to whether you think that most people are good, or that most people are evil. If you think that most people are good, then you'd want them to have guns, if they're evil, well, you wouldn't want them to have anything as lethal as a hole puncher.


"Well, many gun owners will not even consider the argument that is being made by some of the finest criminalogists in the world. "

Many fine criminoligists also argue against gun control. I'd love to see some of these reports you speak of, and the research that went into them. They were researched? They aren't just opinions, are they?


"What kind of progress could be made against dangerous criminals who possess
handguns illegally? Come on, think about it."

None. All guns in D.C. are supposed to be registered. Do you know how many crimes the D.C. police department has solved because of gun licensing? None. Ever. Call them and ask. Perhaps you should "think about it."


"It is all about what I want, what is good for me, not what is good for us."

Apparantly, it's all about what YOU want, not what's good for US. You are the one trying to force law-abiding people to do something based on your opinions that have no basis in fact. There is no evidence that shows that gun registration or gun owner licensing would have the effect of reducing violent crime. Based on that fact, I have to question your motives.
 
Mr. O'Reilly...

After registration, then what? Unless said firearm is used illegally, your registration does nothing to combat crime and violence. Of course, we both know what you'd ask for, nay demand: That police have carte blanche to stop and search anyone, anywhere, anytime without probable cause.
Stop!! Show me your papers, schnell!

Of course, that little vial of cocaine in your pocket, Mr. O'Reilly is illegal as well.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Good responses all. But, (always a "but" with me) ....

Oreilly like pithy. The responses above are well-written, etc. & he may read 'em & may be swayed somewhat.

But, ;) if you want to get them on the air (to sway The Audience = always the main target, BTW) .... make it short, curt & to the point. Coupla short sentences max.
 
Pithy enough?

Mr. O'Reilly, your "Talking Points" memo on handgun registration lacks
your usual logic. "If handguns are registered then any American found
carrying one without the proper credentials can be immediately
prosecuted and punished harshly," you said. The people you describe are
called criminals, and are supposed to be punished. But what is the
purpose of registering and maintaining a list of the guns and names of
the law-abiding? It certainly isn't for the purpose of sending annual
reminders for gun tune-ups.

Dick
 
Mr. O'Reilly,

The BATF tells us that 93% of guns used in crimes are NOT legally owned. That means they are stolen. That means that 93% of guns that are caught in the hands of criminals are already illegal! It does not matter if a gun is registered: if it is stolen and misused like in 93% of cases, then it is still an illegally used gun. What do you want to do....make them MORE illegal? Being illegal is not good enough, but they have to be more illegal? Do you think that this next law will make all the difference? Will the next law be enforced, unlike all the other ones? Why not just enforce the laws we have, which means that these criminals could already be prosecuted for having illegal guns?

These guns that are in criminals' hands are already illegal. The fact is, the Police drop these charges and do not use them against the crooks. What we need first, is to enforce the laws against these criminals before we talk about making new laws, which are nothing more than new burdens to law-abiding citizens.



Also, in regarding your opinions (since you have very little or NO facts supporting your claims):


"It is all about what I want, what is good

for me, not what is good for us. "

Sounds like a great communist ideal. You will do well in the new regime.


I think the first thing we could do to insure the continuance of our freedoms in the United States would be to register and license all reporters and put a waiting period on news articles and editorials to ensure that they are truthful and not harmful. Oh, does that sound like an infringement on your first amendment Rights? Well, it would be for the good of the people, for all of us, and you can just relinquish some of your Rights for the rest of our good. Opinions like yours, when written and dispersed by assault computers (high speed internet connections) can be extremely harmful to our freedoms, especially because I don't think you are incoherent enough to actually believe your rantings, but instead you just write them in order to get people to read your quacky ideas (the more radical, the more response you get). What that equates to is abuse of your Right and that means the government should step in and monitor your writing for the good of the people. I am sure you won't mind having the government monitor your writing for the good of the whole, because you seem to be so sure that the government would never abuse that power and keep you from writing what you want.

All hail big government!


(A little too long? Well, it was shorter than I wanted.)
 
This is my reply:

Dear Mr. O'Reilly,
I must disagree with your commentary on gun registration. Having guns
registered would give me absolutely zero additional capability to arrest
a person for illegal firearm possession.

Right now if I come across a subject who is in possession of a firearm,
I can run him/her through NCIC (National Crime Information Center) and
find out if he/she is a convicted felon and unlawfully possessing a
firearm.

The problem is getting the felon prosecuted for the crime. I have seen
felon in possession of a firearm cases dismissed because "his brother is
going to swear it was his gun".

If I come across a firearm, I can run it through NCIC and find out if it
was stolen. So registration would not help there either.

We already have a good system in place with NCIC. All registration
would do would put an additional burden on law abiding citizens.

In another part of your show, you expressed doubts that the Reno Justice
Department would do an acceptable job of overseeing the New York and
LApolice departments. I agree. My question to you Mr. O'Reilly is;
would you trust this same justice department to oversee a firearms
licensing scheme?

Respectfully,
Jeff White
Kinmundy Illinois 15 year sworn peace officer
 
Simple fact...here in NY handgun registration is used only to harass and belittle law abiding handgun owners. The criminals don't give a damn about the law, and they are almost never prosecuted for having the illegal handgun!


Geoff Ross

------------------
One reason to vote in the next Presidential election.

It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!
 
Mr. Oreilly,

1) In my selfishness, I'll still side with
Washington, Madison and Jefferson over any of your
"finest criminologist in the world" (finest according
to whom anyway?)

2) In my selfishness, I firmly contend it's not
"cops" who need a "tremendous advantage"; it's us, the
people. That's why the Second Amendment was written:
for the people's advantage, not the Government's.

3) In my selfishness, I still believe that FIRST we
need to "immediately prosecute and punish harshly"
those who commit crimes, and THEN, if this fails to
make a dent, we can talk about additional measures.

4) In my selfishness, I am still proud to live in the
America that millions defended with the "ultimate
sacrifice". An America of individuals, not of "common
goods".

I am usually a fan of yours, but this time you have
really gone off the deep end.

------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited May 19, 2000).]
 
Cassandra - that was great. Your last paragraph should really hit home with this cretin.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top