"Heavy Weapons"

The only good thing (for various values of 'good') I can say about politicians is that they make News Commentators look good ... by comparison.

In his June 14, 2016,  "Talking Points Memo", Fox News Commentator Bill O'Reilly segues from his original topic to Gun Control.

Acceptable losses | Fox News Video: 

Jun. 14, 2016 - 8:20 - 'The O'Reilly Factor': Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points 6/14

In this eight minute session about half-way through (03:30 minutes) O'Reilly begins to talk about the "Right Wing Responsibility".

From this point on, he should have stopped the "Acceptable Losses" mask and started another 'memo', called "Heavy Weapons".   And no, I din't know what that means.

The following is a portion of the transcript (which was not made available to viewers): note that most of the text was printed on the backdrop, but O'Reilly's signature off-the-cuff comments varied.  His verbal comments are highlighted when they vary from the background text. Words which were listed on the background text but which he did not voice are lined out.   I wrote down his comments as he talked, and I may have missed a few words.

[begin direct quotes]

There is much gun crime in the USA and High Powered weapons are too easy to get.  That's the point! So let's deal with it!

We all have the right too keep and bear arms, but we don't have the right to buy and maintain mortars even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order.  No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades.
That's because the Second Amendment clearly states that the government has oversight powers ... the right to regulate militias, made up of individuals.  They have that right in the name of Public Safety.
Therefore, Congress should define the kind of weapons for public sales.  And the states should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their people.

(excise a few paragraphs on identifying terrorists, and acknowledging current laws regulating firearms dealers, etc.) Continue quote:

New laws are (definitely) needed in the age of terrorism and mass murder.
The FBI and the federal agencies need the power to stop  suspected terrorists or other evil-doers from buying weapons.
That law needs to be very precise.  Also, gun dealers all across America should be required to report the sale of certain guns ... heavy guns, (directly) to the FBI.  [NB: O'Reilly's emphasis]
That does not include handguns, but other weapons that would be defined by congress.
That's sane and would make it a lot harder for the Omar Mateens of the world to get the weaponry to kill.
Although as Talking Points has stated many many times, no society will ever stop all gun crimes especially in a country that has hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation.

Now, back to ISIS.

According to a 2014 RAND corporation study, the number of sunni and Jihadist muslims doubled between 2010 to 2013.
These were the prime years of President Obama's pull-back retreat and of the middle (exit?)
Just since 2014, more than 1,000 people human beings have been murdered by ISIS outside of their base areas in Syria and Iraq.  While the President Obama is content with wearing ISIS down and outsourcing the direct fight to others that his strategy is leading to more death and disruption all over the planet across the globe.
But the Left will not see that this is a war worth fighting.

(SUMMARY)

At home, we need to tighten regulations of certain weapons INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
But we also need to stop demonizing good people who own guns for protection and want to keep their rights in place.

[end direct quotes] 

These are from the transcript I prepared while watching the video, and may not be complete.  There may be some transcription errors, but the replacement of background text on the video vs the actual verbalization of O'Reilly's comments is as accurate as I can make it.

If you're interested in verifying, the link is available at the top of the page.

Oh, and as for the "heavy weapons" title ... one of the more charming traits of television commentators (and one which they share with Liberal politicians) is that they feel free to use terminology which is not in common use, nor defined, but sound very ominous.   My guess is that Our Good Friend Bill is either talking about 'long guns' (rifles, shotguns?) or about full-automatic weapons (which are already regulated to the brink of oblivion).

More realistically, Bill neither knows nor cares what he's talking about.  He just made it all up; he's pissed that The Left already stole the rights to the term "Assault Weapon".  It's all bullshit blather presented for some combination of three purposes:

1. Allow Bill to pontificate, which he obviously does love to do
2. Present an image of a "conservative" (HAH!) who feels the pain of the anti-gun Left
3. Fill in some dead air-time which the producers didn't have any 'product' to full

PERSONALLY .....

.... I don't accept O'Reilly's premise that 'new laws are needed', in the context of his monologue.  There are already a plethora of 'gun control' laws which, if everyone (read: 'jihadists') were law-abiding, would prevent the acquisition of firearms by persons of evil intent.  (read: 'jihadists')

The FBI and the federal agencies need the power to stop  suspected terrorists or other evil-doers from buying weapons.

Right.   They have the laws; they don't work

...gun dealers all across America should be required to report the sale of certain guns ... heavy guns

Right.  They already do ... for ALL guns, not just 'heavy guns'.  Whatever that is. (Bill already said his target ' does not include handguns'.)

Some people don't like the fact that NICS Background Checks include specifications on the firearm being transferred, not simply identification of the purchaser and queries as to whether that person was prohibited from purchasing a firearm.  (I'm one of them.)  But if Bill O'Reilly is worried about HEAVY GUNS, then his federal system already has that information when the feds do a verification on a firearms transfer.

But actually, it's not a current problem.  The Feds can't keep the transaction records for more than a few days (by federal law).

And if Bill doesn't like the idea of  demonizing good people, then he shouldn't be in such a hurry to rewrite firearms laws which he doesn't seem to understand.