4 responses to “Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney”

1. 

   Pascal

   July 27, 2012

   Selwyn,
   Let’s face it Selwyn. O’Reilly has always been a bit squishy by playing to the middle ground, often where there really wasn’t any firm middle ground but only a slippery slope. So I a m les concerned by O’Reilly’s stance than I am with a very good friend of yours, Michael Savage.
   I received an email yesterday from the Doc entitled: ‘You don’t need body armor to hunt deer.’ Deer hunting is an old code word that’s been used by RINOs whenever they get ready to excuse their complicity with the Left on its latest crackdown on self defense, acting as if they never heard that it’s governments who have been the gravest threat to liberty time and again in history.
   But even worse than that title, there are his words that disclose that the Doc has abandoned conservative principles in favor of “pragmatic” compromise. Here, let his own words reveal the problem.
   “We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.
   That’s because unless our side controls what gets banned, we’re liable to see things happen that we don’t want to happen,”
   It’s as if he suddenly believes that if conservatives will just give the Statists this they’ll be satisfied. Appeasement Dr. Savage? Tell us, when has that worked?
   Bottom line: I never expected much better from O’Reilly; but I’m alarmed by Savage new course.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Pascal

   July 27, 2012

   BTW Selwyn,
   I understand if you don’t respond to this observation. On one hand you’d like to show your loyalty to the Doc, but it’s gonna be near impossible to apologize for a position of compromise and appeasement without abandoning your principles.
   I have a different problem from yours. The question to me is why has Dr. Savage betrayed my defense of him all these years? It was his standing by the hardest lines that made me respect him. What “hard-liner” will be the next to betray us? God help us.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Selwyn Duke

   July 27, 2012

   Dear Pascal,
   Thank you for posting here, and I’ll be happy to respond. I was unaware of the email you cite; I don’t believe I ever received it.
   Needless to say, however, I disagree profoundly with Michael on this one. And, if I could talk to him, perhaps I’d be able to change his mind. I’d point out that most of us who own guns — and this includes him and me — have them not for hunting but self-defense. Taking this into consideration, one can well see the possible need for body armor. After all, can we be so sure that we won’t find ourselves in a Katrina-like situation in which there’s social breakdown and bullets are coming our way from armed gangs? It also should be noted that James Holmses’s body armor didn’t kill anyone on that fateful night in Aurora. Body armor is defensive in function.
   In Michael’s defense, I’ll say that he’s an extremely sincere man who never takes positions unless he believes in them. And I certainly wouldn’t place his commentary on the same plane as O’Reilly’s rant, which displayed a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter on which he was rendering opinions.
   But I’ll reiterate that I disagree with Michael on this one. We don’t need more gun control; we need more criminal control.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Pascal

   July 27, 2012

   Thank you Selwyn. It would be a boon could you convince the Doc to reassess his position even if not a full retraction. But please be careful. I’ve noticed a change in him that has me worried.
   I’m forwarding you the email so you have a copy.

   LikeLike

   Reply