Any decent person would be saddened over this senseless loss of life in Orlando, Florida. It is extremely sad every time we hear about another mass shooting. And, we mourn for every life lost. However, for better or worse, we do not all agree that restricting the ownership of guns, in any way, would do a bit of good in stopping these senseless crimes.
On Bill O’Reilly’s Monday night appearance on The Stephen Colbert Show, O’Reilly and Colbert were talking about this tragic shooting in Orlando. In this segment with Colbert, as reported by TheBlaze.com, O’Reilly says some very troubling, and misleading things, in my humble opinion.
Here are a few examples from The Blaze.com article:
“O’Reilly said that it would be perfectly legitimate for Congress to “debate” and “define” which types of weapons should be outlawed completely nationwide…”
If someone, in this case O’Reilly, wants to make a case that it is legitimate for Congress to be involved with some of the circumstances surrounding this case – particularly if it is related to terrorism – there, certainly, can be a lot of consensus around that. O’Reilly, however, goes much further, by saying that Congress should define “which types of weapons should be outlawed completely…”
I think The Second Amendment makes it abundantly clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment, being one of the first Ten Amendments [Bill of Rights] to The United States Constitution, made it explicitly clear that Congress has no authority in this area of our citizenry’s lives.
O’Reilly then went on to say, ‘…because federal law always takes precedent.’”
Wow! Talk about a Nationalist mindset! No O’Reilly, federal law does not always take precedent! This shows a complete misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of The United States Constitution. On it’s face, it is an absurd statement! When the States set out to create The United States Constitution, and thus, this federal government, their intention was not to give this new government absolute control over every law made in each of the thirteen states. If that had been their goal, they may as well just stayed subjects to The British Crown!
O’Reilly, no doubt, however, is referring to The Supremacy Clause, in The U.S. Constitution; but, the Supremacy Clause only gives Congress supreme authority over any Powers that were explicitly given to them. In other words, in explicit pursuance to The Constitution. Therefore, if Congress was never given constitutional authority in a particular area – and, furthermore, having been explicitly banned from making laws in a given area – then The Supremacy Clause is null and void.
“Colbert then asked if O’Reilly thought such a policy would provoke an ‘outcry from people who believe in states’ rights.'”
“O’Reilly replied, ‘Outcry doesn’t concern me.'”
Well, O’Reilly, I don’t think The American people are concerned if it concerns you! And, it’s not like O’Reilly is saying, Congress should propose an Amendment to The Constitution, and put it to the States for ratification – which, if you believe as he does, would be the proper suggestion. No, he is essentially saying, to hell with that Constitution, Congress should do whatever it dam well pleases!
“Well there’s an outcry over the Second Amendment…’ Colbert interjected.”
“I don’t care,’ O’Reilly said.”
Wow! Is there any wonder our country is in the shape it is in? And, why we have the government we currently have? And, what a field day for the Big Government crowd, when a person such as O’Reilly gets on TV and says these sorts of things!
As many of us already know: O’Reilly is no fan of Limited Government. And, this only further demonstrates it.
Repeal Of The 2nd Amendment Would Not Abolish Any Right