Shooting Down The Constitution

[RobertNashville]

As we approach another July 4th and amid all the grilling and fireworks, I think this column by Bill O'Reilly is scary and worth a read.

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Carmentr%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS Mincho"; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4; mso-font-alt:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@MS Mincho"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Shooting Down the Constitution

By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com

Thursday, July 1, 2010

<o></o>

"Even a simple guy like me can figure out these words from the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's contained in the Second Amendment. So why did four Supreme Court justices this week vote to infringe on the right to bear arms?

The court ruled 5 to 4 that 76-year-old Otis McDonald, an African-American Democrat who lives in Chicago, can own a handgun. Mr. McDonald, a retired working class guy, sued the city for taking away his right to protect himself. McDonald was blunt. He said his neighborhood is full of thugs who threaten his well-being and the city cannot control the situation. So he, Otis, has to protect himself from harm.

But Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all basically told Mr. McDonald to take a hike. They opined that guns cause a lot of damage to society; therefore, if a city wants to ban them, it can. But that is a policy belief, is it not? Where in the Constitution does it say if guns become a menace to society they can be banned? Where does it say that?

The Founding Fathers well understood the need for individual protection. Under King George, British soldiers routinely threw Colonial families out of their homes using a bogus law called the "Quartering Act." Also, the colonists had little protection from harm because there was no federal authority and state governments were in their infancy. The Founders also recognized that armed rebellion was a possibility even after we threw the British out. So they allowed the new American citizens the right to "bear arms" as protection and, indeed, wanted the folks to form "militias" in case of emergency.

A smart fifth-grader understands all that, but apparently four Supreme Court justices do not.

If these liberal jurists really cared about gun control, they would urge Congress to pass a law making all gun crimes federal offenses with mandatory prison sentences of ten years. That would mean that any thug who carried a gun illegally, or used one to commit a crime, would be facing a ten-year stretch on top of whatever else he or she had done. You want bad guys with guns off the streets? That's the way to do it.

My opinion on gun control changed drastically when I saw the chaos in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>New Orleans</st1></st1:city> following Hurricane Katrina. Armed bands of looters in boats cruised the city, taking pretty much any thing they wanted, because the local police presence had collapsed. If you had remained in town in order to protect your property, you would have been at the mercy of these looters unless you had the firepower to ward them off. That is why all Americans have the right to bear arms.

It is depressing to think that the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs of this world do not care a whit about the welfare of Otis McDonald and other Americans who find themselves at risk. For Justice Ginsburg, it is all about her liberal philosophy, not what benefits the American people.

The Supreme Court is just one justice away from giving Ms. Ginsburg and her leftist crew the power to completely usurp the Constitution. Be very afraid."

LINK: Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Column - Shooting Down the Constitution

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm surprised O'Reilly stood up for the 2nd amendment. He has made some screwy comments

against it in the recent past. Good Piece, though.

[LagerHead]

What's even scarier is that he uses the example of Katrina to show why the 2nd Amendment is necessary, but he stated on his own show that he supports gun confiscation during situations like...you guessed it, KATRINA!

Asking Rhodes why it is legitimate for Oath Keepers to even discuss government disarming Americans, Rhodes properly cited

in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. When O'Reilly brought up a state of emergency, Rhodes shot back by challenging him to show "where...it say in the Constitution that bad weather suspends the Constitution."

"It's not a matter of bad weather," O'Reilly replied. "It's a matter of can't control the city."

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d19-Conservative-Bill-OReilly-supports-gun-confiscation-in-emergencies

I'd add a link to the video, but it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright claim by Fox.

[RobertNashville]

Based on all his comments it's difficult to say how much he supports or doesn't support "gun rights" in general.

There are people who don't particularly "like' firearms and don't own them and may even think that other people "shouldn't" own them but who DO believe that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says even if they don't personally like what it has to say.

In any case, maybe he has changed his mind about Katrina and/or the need for firearms for protection when the government of a city, etc has broken down (or in the case of Katrina, run away)...I do think he is sincere in his desire that the balance of the court not shift to those who want the court to become a legislative branch of government that re-writes social policy in their own, liberal worldview. There is more at stake than the Second Amendment if that happens!

Edited July 2, 2010 by RobertNashville

[LagerHead]

Based on all his comments it's difficult to say how much he supports or doesn't support "gun rights" in general.

There are people who don't particularly "like' firearms and don't own them and may even think that other people "shouldn't" own them but who DO believe that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says even if they don't personally like what it has to say.

In any case, maybe he has changed his mind about Katrina and/or the need for firearms for protection when the government of a city, etc has broken down (or in the case of Katrina, run away)...I do think he is sincere in his desire that the balance of the court not shift to those who want the court to become a legislative branch of government that re-writes social policy in their own, liberal worldview. There is more at stake than the Second Amendment if that happens!

Can't argue with any of that.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm surprised O'Reilly stood up for the 2nd amendment. He has made some screwy comments

against it in the recent past. Good Piece, though.

Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder if he's all there, has really been all over the place on lots of issues in last few months, seems.

- OS

[garethsk]

...has really been all over the place on lots of issues in last few months, seems.

He's a celebrity; his job is to stay as popular as possible, with as many people as possible, to keep the ratings up. He'll flip-flop around on everything to keep his job.

[Ebow1]

The 2nd amendment won't be the only one in jeopardy, but it'll be the one that saves the others.

[DaveTN]

He's a celebrity; his job is to stay as popular as possible, with as many people as possible, to keep the ratings up. He'll flip-flop around on everything to keep his job.

Exactly. His job is to keep his name in threads like these so he can lead the good life.