-list celebrities are now weighing in on the gun control issue, but are they adding to intelligent debate or political posturing? Bill O'Reilly examines Hollywood's involvement in the push for gun control.
I don't particularly like Bill O'Reilly, nor do I always agree with him.
I feel the same way about Chris Rock.
And I don't agree Chris Rock's assertion that " ... the president of the United States is -- you know -- 'our boss'".
He's not "Our Boss".
File that statement under "Political Posturing". Okay, I agree with O'Reilly there. It's hardly "intelligent debate".
The POTUS is our employee; he's suppose to do simple little things like look out for our best interests, and support our Constitution.
(The statements of Tony Bennet .. who has a wonderful voice ... make me wish he was just singing "I Left My Heart In San Francisco", or something else that he can handle better than anyone else. And please, Tony, don't be talking about "The Great Country of Germany" during the WWII era ... you sound even more like an Alzheimer's patient than *_I_* do!)
Now, here's the salient point of O'Reilly's short statement which is NOT clearly obvious in the accompanying text, and which he stated quickly in obvious hopes that nobody would notice. O'Reilly said:
"Talking Points has clearly stated clearly stated that "
This was shortly after he (Bill O'Reilly) said:
"Hitler imposed the strictest gun control on earth. The only reason that the Nazi's didn't get further was because (folks in the Balkans and France and) occupied countries hid weapons and used them against the Nazis. (Those people were called .. Partisans.)"Trotting out vacuous .... celebrities --- gets us nowhere" O'Reilly concluded.
I don't know what O'Reilly meant by "Talking Points"; I can guess that he meant the Talking Points Memo website.
... but I would probably be wrong. That is a Conservative website, and Conservatives invariably support the Constitution, and thus the Second Amendment.
Still .. when O'Reilly says straight out: "... gun registration and all gun crimes should be federalized.", I get this funny feeling running up my leg that says: "This Guy Is Pro-Gun Registration".
I've talked about gun registration before, especially in reference to the California gun registration scheme of the 1990's. But here's the short story:
California allowed ownership of some firearms (eg: SKS) in the late 1990's, but required that owners "register" these firearms. Shortly after, the Attorney General's office of California determined that these same firearms were "illegal" .. and use those registration lists as a convenient means to force owners to surrender the same guns which were previously deemed 'legeal, but must be registered'. Essentially, Registration led directly to Confiscation.
This has been a lesson to us all: Registration IS Confiscation ... save only a (short, very short) time laps.
So ..... Legitimate (today) gun owners will/must NEVER agree to any form of "Registration", knowing full well that it is only the first short step to "Confiscastion" of (tomorrow) "Restricted" guns. No, we're not being paranoid; we are citing American history. This actually happened in America. It sets a precedent, and it can happen in YOUR state as early as --- tomorrow.
When Bill O'Reilly says "... gun registeration ... should be federalized ...", he is saying that he supports Registration, and consequently Confiscation, on a nation-wide basis. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, eh?
Or to Obama when he says "We don't want to take your guns".
Liars, Damned Liars, and Politicians. What can you do?
I leave it to you to state the obvious answer. But I would never counsel you to listen to the fast-talking smiling faces who slip in hard messages in the middle of their soft words.
Obama and O'Reilly. Who knew?
(This O'Reillyopinion was published on February 7, 2013.)