Bill O'Reilly: Shooting Down the Constitution

[Marshal Halloway]

Posted on www.townhall.com

By Bill O'Reilly (Jul 03, 2010)

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. 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 has to protect himself from harm.

But Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg basically told 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 that 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 10 years. That would mean that any thug who carried a gun illegally or used one to commit a crime would be facing a 10-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.

Bolded by DRTV Editor:
My opinion on gun control changed drastically when I saw the chaos in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Armed bands of looters in boats cruised the city taking pretty much anything 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 Ginsburg, it is all about her liberal philosophy -- not what benefits the American people.

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

Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of "Who's Looking Out For You?" and "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity."

[twyacht]

from article:

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

True words.

Thank you Marshall, I know there was some previous threads about O'Reilly on gun issues, but he is not an idiot, and his notion to make gun crimes Federal with mandatory sentencing, would target,...... THE BAD GUYS! What a notion!!!

Not the law abiding citizen(s), in which groups like Brady, et al, would rather have disarmed.

[Pathfinder]

from article:

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

True words.

Thank you Marshall, I know there was some previous threads about O'Reilly on gun issues, but he is not an idiot, and his notion to make gun crimes Federal with mandatory sentencing, would target,...... THE BAD GUYS! What a notion!!!

Not the law abiding citizen(s), in which groups like Brady, et al, would rather have disarmed.

Looks good on paper until the gummint declares you a "terrorist" and now subject to mandatory sentence, cuz, ya know, you own evil guns.

The .gov did not need Rahmmie to point out the "crisis" benefits, they have been masters at subverting technology and the law to their needs. Predator drones with Hellfires are great over some mud hut village in Kandahar. Over the US is another story, and yet we are but a single order away from having exactly that.

Be careful what you wish for. No new gun control laws - NONE!!!! Enforce the ones you have.

[mortdooley]

 I have just one objection to a federal law is that suggested here, the ability of aggressive prosecutors to jail honest citizens by perverting it. Pass a law that allows citizens to protect themselves without the courts or government causing legal or criminal hardships. If you protect yourself from a crime the police come and apologize for the criminal being on the streets as long as he was and that is the end of it.

[fullautovalmet76]

Be careful what you wish for. No new gun control laws - NONE!!!! Enforce the ones you have.

Spot on!

[Sponsor]

[tt11758]

Looks good on paper until the gummint declares you a "terrorist" and now subject to mandatory sentence, cuz, ya know, you own evil guns.

The .gov did not need Rahmmie to point out the "crisis" benefits, they have been masters at subverting technology and the law to their needs. Predator drones with Hellfires are great over some mud hut village in Kandahar. Over the US is another story, and yet we are but a single order away from having exactly that.

Be careful what you wish for. No new gun control laws - NONE!!!! Enforce the ones you have.

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[billt]

I'm noticing as Hussein's poll numbers continue to slide south, O'Reilly is coming down a little harder on him, and his policies. In short he's leaning more to the right, and detaching himself from the Independant logo he has been so acustomed to hiding behind in the past. I'm not fond of people who continually call themselves "Independant". To me it's a cop out to allow yourself to play both sides of the political fence.

It's not something you can shuffle yourself both to and from. For example, I'm not a one issue voter who likes guns. I love guns, along with the freedom they represent. Show me ANY politician who is anti gun, and I don't need to know another thing about him. It is all but guaranteed I won't like any and all of his or her political positions. I don't need to call myself "Independent" because it isn't necessary. You can't be "A little bit pregnant", anymore than you can support gun control and be worth a damn politically in any other political venue. It's simply impossible. You do not have to be a gun owner to be against gun control. All you require is a healthy dose of common sense. I have yet to meet a single anti gun person who has any.   Bill T.

[crusader rabbit]

All you require is a healthy dose of common sense. I have yet to meet a single anti gun person who has any.   Bill T.

And you get a hearty AMEN from this rabbit.  Every political issue may not be this simple and there are points of view that can be evaluated and understood, even if we do not endorse them.  But, any politician who disavows the essential tenets of either The Constitution or The Bill of Rights gets an automatic "Non-Starter" endorsement from Crusader.  When people fail to understand this common sense concept, you get what we now have--an anti-American in the White House.

[oldkat69]

    Bill O'Reilly still doesn't get it.  This is a Republic.  The Constitution with it's "negative" rights as BHO complains of, is to protect us from runaway governments and tyrants; NOT to solve every problem that comes along.  Our "inaleinable rights" will serve us just fine if we avail ourselves of them (which by the way,Elena Kagan does not believe in).  What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't they understand!

[billt]

One thing that is really starting to bother me about O'Reilly is his constant and continual interruption of his guests. I understand he doesn't want to allow his guests to "Spin the debate", but he's turned from that to not allowing his guests to complete a single sentence without interrupting them from making a single point. One of the worst was his interview of Suzanne Sommers. She is very pro health and doesn't want the government sticking their nose into sale and distribution of many health care products. The poor woman could not get a word in edgewise. Sometimes I think the guy enjoys using his guests to interview himself.  Bill T.