Gun rights activists have noted that for the past three nights in a row Fox News‘ Bill O’Reilly has advocated gun control, calling for a national database of gun owners who buy what he calls “heavy weapons,” including the registration of ammunition sales. Such a database is specifically prohibited by law.
The three night assault on the Second Amendment rights of citizens led one activist to refer to O’Reilly as a “faux conservative” and another to call for a boycott of The O’Reilly Factor and a coordinated effort by gun owners to contact the sponsors of the show expressing their deep discontent. Complete article below
With O’Reilly’s new anti-gun initiative he joins the ranks of other well-known gun control activists such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, CNN’s Piers Morgan, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., all of whom are considered extremists by those who are involved in the movement to protect the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
As reported Friday, seven Democrats in the U.S. Senate have sponsored an amendment to be attached to the new cybersecurity bill that would ban guns that have high round capacity. The ban would apply to magazines, belts, drums, and feed stripes that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
And President Obama stated that AK-47s belong only in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of criminals. But soldiers do not use AK-47s, which are not “machine guns” as many erroneously assume. The unmodified AK-47 is a semi-automatic weapon, not fully automatic like a machine gun. Further, criminals are already banned from purchasing AK-47s and all other guns.
The manner in which criminals obtain these weapons has nothing to do with the freedom of ordinary citizens to purchase them legally in gun stores. Most criminals get their weapons from the black market on the street. Most citizens get their weapons legally from gun stores. Yet O’Reilly would punish law abiding citizens who never commit acts of murder or other crimes, and who purchase their weapons and ammunition legally from licensed firearms dealers.
O’Reilly, Schumer, Morgan, McCarthy and others would burden all ordinary citizens with laws that address the behaviors of criminals only. Yet those laws would do nothing to rein in criminals who do not obey laws to begin with.
If it is already illegal for a criminal to purchase AK-47s, then how would preventing law abiding citizens from purchasing them stop the criminal who obviously finds a way to get the weapons no matter what the law says?
Thus, O’Reilly has thrown in with the progressive philosophy that maintains the collective society as a whole, and not the individual criminal, is responsible for all of the evil in the world. Therefore, society as a whole, not the individual criminal, is to be regulated, restricted and limited “for their own good.”
O’Reilly’s new philosophical stance seems to be a blatant contradiction of the views he often espouses on his program. Through the years he has insisted that it is the individual who must be held ultimately accountable for his or her actions, that the criminal must be forced to accept the full consequences for his behaviors.
But with his advocacy of gun control O’Reilly has contradicted his own oft repeated philosophy. Rather than forcing the criminal to take full responsibility for his actions, O’Reilly would place restrictions on the whole, the collective society at large. And rather than advocate the targeted effort to rein in the black market where most criminals get their guns and ammunition, he would instead target citizens who would never think about killing anyone with a firearm except in self defense.
O’Reilly, Schumer, and others who in their grand scheme to enact sweeping, draconian gun control have yet to answer one simple question that this reporter has asked incessantly of such persons, “Why should ordinary citizens be forced to pay the price for what one single, solitary criminal does with a gun?”
And further, “Why should citizens be forced to give up their freedoms to try to prevent deranged criminals from committing deranged acts? Why would you imply that ordinary citizens are to blame for these deranged acts by depriving them of their freedom to use whatever firearm they choose in self defense, particularly at a time when criminals are using weapons with high capacity rounds purchased on the black market?”
The gun rights community considers the proposals of O’Reilly and others as a direct attack on their freedom and on the Second Amendment which says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”