FLIP ON FOX!!!!

I'm in the office! Transcribe fast!

There is a rep from GOA and some bitch that is a democratic consultant.

O'reilly keeps saying, "ASSUALT WEOPONS?? THESE ARE BIG GUNS!!!!"

The GOA guy said these guns are not used by any military in the world so they are not really assualt rifles.

O'reilly counters that he is not answering the question.

The bitch says no one votes based on gun control issues anyway!!!!  [rofl2]

FUCK O'REILLY!!!

He just said no one needs assualt rifles,  NO ONE NEEDS "BAZOOKAS" or "MACHINE GUNS".

What the fuck,  he doesn't even know what he is talking about.

I really don't think he knows what the 94 ban even covers.

Oreilly=s*it. He is not as well informed, as he would like to think he is.

[b]Zaphod[/b], he just shut Larry down. What did you expect?

I've always liked O'Reilly, but his position on AW's is based more on spin than facts.

Is the GOA guy correcting him?

Sounds like the anti bitch is trying to duck the issue altogether.

Updates! UPDATES!

TYPE FASTER, MAN!

I’ve never liked O’Reilly; this is definitely not helping.

Sit and "spin zone" this you ratings whore O'reilly!

He can eat S*%#t from here to eternity!

He said nobody should have assault weapons and those of us that want them are "out there on the fringe"

someone write to him and call him on his shit.
see what he says

Yes,  demoncat is dodging the gun thing all together saying no one votes based on guns anyway.

The GOA guy tried to explain what an assualt weapon was and wasn't and Orielly wasn't having any of it.

He just went on and on about how people should be allowed to have "regular" rifles and handguns but NOONE SHOULD HAVE BAZOOKAS OR MACHINE GUNS.

lol

He made himself look really stupid just now in my eyes.

[b]lvgunner777[/b], he knows as much as the average American knows. Heart warming, is't it?

Maybe we could get [b]NYpatriot[/b] to start a write in campaign for Oreilly?

in your eyes yes. in everybody else's they think people can have bazookas and machine guns.

i'd ask everybody on this forum to write him a short e-mail explaining his faults.

i'll do mine. if he gets enough he might understand and not be so critical.

I shot off a few e-mails as I was watching that puke spit his BS. What a fu@king retard!

I'll watch the encore tonight and respond...

He is getting one from me right now.....


[email protected]


This just sent to that moron......

I was deeply embarrased for you when I saw you spouting off about "assault weapons".  You really displayed a gross negligence for facts and used sensationalism rather than truths.  Are you even aware what the "assualt weapon" ban of 1994 is and what it covers?  It covers SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles that LOOK like military weapons.  There is no military in the world that uses these weopons,  they use automatic weapons for the most part.  "Machine Guns" as you described have a ban on their own with a much more stringent background check and much lengthier waiting period involved to own one.  

The Dean issue has nothing to do with MACHINE GUNS or BAZOOKAS for goodness sake.  You are so big on getting rid of so called spin,  well you spun this issue like the best of the liberal democrats.  If you are going to speak out against something,  you should at least know what the hell you are talking about.  Shame on you O'reilly,  I thought you were better than that.



By the way,  yes it was edited for spelling before sending it.

Why?? I already know what neo-cons "feel" about the 2nd Amendment!!!  [ROFL2]!!!

[email protected]

I just wrote him explaining how ignorate he was on what makes a so-called "assault weapon".

People should be able to have bazookas and MGs.

O'Reilly just turned himself into a POS in my eyes anyway.

No my last name isn't triple X!

You know, if you guys were just a little less condescending, you might be much more convincing. [rolleyes]

PSSST.... People CAN have bazookas and MG's... you just have to be able to AFFORD them.

I watched the show.  I agree with O'Reilly about 95% of the time, but on this subject, he is 100% out of line.  O'Reilly is clearly ignorant of this issue and unaware of the facts.  He is also out of line in making those statements without doing a bit of research to find out about us and our hobby.  He is totally unaware of our position, our reasons for owning what he refers to "assault weapons", and what a true assault weapon is.  This should not surprise anyone really, since our evil black rifles are demonized by virtually all of the media and most Americans have no clue...just like O'Reilly.

There is an answer.  We need to write Mr. O'Reilly.  We need to send him lots of email about who, what, why.  We need to get OUR ideas, opinions and positions out there on the air.  We need to explain the FACTS to Mr. O'Reilly and we need to do so calmly, politely and without inflammatory rhetoric and vicious name calling.  We need to EDUCATE him!  In so doing, we will educate the American body politic too.  We took a hit tonight...we need to fix it.

My email to O'Reilly.  Please, everyone email this PRICK and let him know how misinformed he is!



[b]Bill

You stated that those who defend a person's right to own a so-called "assault-weapon" are on the fringe.  Perhaps that is because, like you, many Americans are confused as to what exactly an assault weapon is.  The ban has nothing to do with bazookas and machine guns, Bill.[/b]

For those of you (like me) who don’t have access to cable, here is O’Reilly’s webpage:

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html[/url]

They post transcripts of at least some of his shows; hopefully they will post a transcript of this one in a few days.

Also, what was he saying about Dean in relation to the AWB?

I find it ironic that I was once thought of being "on the fringe" for listening to the Oreilly show and now he is saying I am "on the fringe."

Biggame223

Out

That he flipped on the issue.

BTW, for those of you who may not have seen it, about a year or so ago O'Reilly did a program where he blasted CCW. Later in the same program, he had a segment where he mentioned that Rosie O'Donnel was walking around with armed guards because of threats, and that this was OK.

A reader e-mailed him explaining that the reason we wanted CCW was the same reason Rosie wanted armed guards, except we can't afford the guards. Right then and their O'Reilly recognized his error and reveresed his position.

He seems to be pretty reasonable, so just make sure the messages we send state the facts and the logic behind our position. Don't do the typical Coalition bullshit and alienate the people you're trying to convince.

mine -

__________________________
Mr Oreilly -

I appreaciate how you cut thru the spin and get to the truth.

But as pertaining gun control, the "Assault Weapons" Ban and firearms, you've been spun by the Liberals.

Your segment last nite, as many on this subject before, contained many factual errors, as promulgated by people who hate inanimate objects.

Please take time to inform yourself. I would be glad to help in any way I can, including some hands on instruction. I am a South Carolina certified concealed weapons instructor.

Best wishes,

garandman
Xxxxxxxx, SC

Remember -


"Nice" convinces more people than "asshole" does.

TRUTH, needs no convincing. You either have it, or are able to recognize it, or you don't/can't.

Like all things in life, it's JUST that easy...

Zaphod, I've been banging my head against the wall since the late sixties. I ain't a new comer to the fight, although I have gotten off the bus a few times.

If ya want niceties, there's plenty here who will oblige you.


I won't.

NO (more!!) COMPROMISE!!   [pissed]!!

My letter to the ass:

Bill, your lack of knowledge regarding assault weapons, what defines an assault weapon, statistics involving crimes involving assault weapons is deplorable. You have lost a great deal of credibility with me. I would have thought you would have taken the time to fully understand your topics before trying to speak about them, all you have managed to do is misinform the public further. Your "no spin zone" is "Bill's Spin Zone". I can no longer support your position on past & future topics without researching them first hand, as you obviously don't do the research required to speak the facts.

First, true military assault weapons such as machine guns have been regulated since 1934. It's called the National Firearms Act. Private citizens can legally own a machine gun in most states. The Federal process for obtaining one is quite complex and time consuming and above all, expensive. The fact is, most machine gun owners are doctors, lawyers and people with 6 figure salaries. It will comfort you to know that since 1934 only one crime has ever been committed with a legally owned machine gun, by a police officer no less. The case was Searcy vs. City of Dayton. It will surprise you to know that approximately %50 of all machine guns in the United States are legally owned by private citizens.

Assault weapons, the subject of the 1994 ban, are not machine guns, they are semi automatic weapons, aka. auto loaders no different in function than many hunting rifles and shotguns. They simply have cosmetic features that resemble military rifles. These cosmetic features are the subject of the '94 assault weapon ban.


It will interest you to know, had you taken the time to research the FBI statistics on the FBI web site, that very few crimes are committed with "assault weapons". The overwhelming weapon of choice is a handgun. It's also a fact that hunting rifles of all types are far more powerful caliber weapons than assault weapons.

It will also interest you to know that there are many shooting clubs in America including the Government sponsored Civilian Marksmanship Program that utilize 'assault weapons' in competitive shooting events. It is the competitors in these programs that suffer as a result of the 'feel good' assault weapon law. Let's take for example the following, flash suppressors are banned. A flash suppressor sounds like an evil feature doesn't it? The fact is, a flash suppressor protects the shooters eyes from the otherwise bright muzzle flash especially in low light conditions. How about the banned evil bayonet lug? There are a lot of drive by bayonetings in the news aren't there? The fact is by banning bayonet lugs (a point at which a bayonet can be attached) simply makes it difficult for someone to attach an accessory like a light or a bi-pod. I could elaborate further on the other banned features like an adjustable stock but I don't think that you really care.

It's obvious Bill, that you are about nothing more than ratings no different than the other liberal media outlets. You prostitute yourself for Nielson like all the rest, damn the facts, your opinion is all that matters. Well, your uninformed opinion negates your credibility with me, I'll seek a better source of truly unbiased information from now on.

C.S.
Gainesville, FL

Sigh.....

Liberty, I'm not asking for niceties or compromise. What I'm asking you is to impart the wisdom you very obviously have acquired over all these years unto the next generation.

If you have been "banging your head against the wall since the sixties", then you have about twenty years on me. Rather than telling me that I'm too stupid to understand the truth, why not try to TEACH the truth?

I'm convinced that if you guys were a bit more like teachers and a lot less asshole, you'd win converts a lot quicker. Also, if you were just a bit more open-minded, you would at least understand our "weaknesses" while not necessarily agreeing with them.

For you in particular, my friend, your're BETTER than your first post in this thread would lead a novice to believe. I know it because you and I have argued, fought, agreed, and surfed together for awhile now. Others don't have that luxury, and you're driving them away when you could be winning them over.

THAT's what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to compromise your beliefs. That wouldn't be like you, now would it?

I guess we shouldn't tell him there are no laws governing possesion of flame throwers.

CW [pyro]

Really? I thought they were covered by NFA '34 as well.

Way to go Paul! [beer]

I hope everyone realizes that what Orielly is doing is using his celebrity status to promote his AGENDA which is to take away your FAL, AR 15  or any other assault type rifle you own.

Please be civil and let him know what you think.

Tom

I used to listen and watch O'Reilly until I figured out that he is really more self-serving that the buffet line at the Grand Casino.  I sent him this email anyway:

Bill,

I've always enjoyed the way in which you express your views and and mainly agree with them, but even as a longtime viewer of "The Factor" and a listener of the Radio Factor, I have to part ways with you on this tenet of basic freedom.

You demonstrate a heretofore unseen ignorance and uninformed fanaticism with respect to these guns which are functionally and ballistically no different (And frequently less powerful than) than a semi automatic hunting rifle, but seem to stir the soul of the uninformed because they "look evil".

Frankly, Bill, I expected more of you. Those of us that are most decidedly not on the lunatic fringe, and frankly resent being branded as such because we choose to own and shoot our firearms, are sorely diasappointed in your lack of knowledge. You should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to the mainstream media level.

Sincerely,

Me

SG

*CRIPES* people, remember to at least /pretend/ to be polite so he'll read your letter through and thoughtfully reconsider his position.  If he gets a bunch of mail that says

j00 are teh SUCK!!  

then do you think he'll take us seriously?  HELL NO.  Remember, the media can be our best friends or our worst enemies -- and w.r.t. scary evil "assault" rifles, we need all the media friends we can get.  Here is my letter (hope it makes it on the air, can someone tell me if it does cause I don't have cable):


Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

I enjoy watching your show and appreciate it when you correct the spin that the leftists put on various issues.  That said, you tonight appear to fall prey to some of that spin on the topic of guns.  An "assault weapon" as defined by the 1994 bill is a rifle that fires only one shot per trigger-pull, with 2 or more certain features that make the weapon look scary.  The law does not address machineguns or bazookas in any way -- those two classes of weapons were covered in the 1934 National Firearms act (ammended in 1968).  *Please* don't buy into the spin that the liberals are putting on the "assault weapon" issue -- they WANT you to think it is about machine guns!

James Blachly
Little Rock, Arkansas

For the four millionth time, zaphod,....

When you vote for the "lessor of two evils", you still get evil.  (EVERY time buddy!!)

When you vote for Tweedely-dee, you GET Tweedely-dee!!

You MUST vote for the "best man". You MUST vote your conscience.

The vote is given you by your Lord, and those who fought for it.

How can you justify to THEM, your vote for the "lessor of two evils"???

Maybe YOU can......

[b]I[/b] cannot.

Email sent, Asking a few things like;
Why he got his info from HCI, is this the No Spin Zone?
M16 and Ar15 not being the same.
Cosmtics, Would he do his show with out Make up?

Bill Bradys MG's what happened to them?

Sara's Straw buy in 2000?

With info filled in before the questions, ending with "Hell Bill I don't like some of your ties, does that mean you are going to go out and choke someone with them?"

Here is mine:

Shame on you Bill!  Either you (or your researcher) did a poor job of researching the assault weapons ban.  The law simply does not apply to “bazookas or machineguns”.  There are other laws that cover those items.  The “Assault Weapons Ban” outlaws comparatively low-powered (compared to most hunting rifles) rifles that fire ONE shot if the trigger is pulled, based on cosmetic features.

May I suggest reading before speaking?

S. (I guess I’m on the fringe) ******

Not that I could find. Also have seen several on the web for sale.

CW

I do believe they are a DD.

They might be, but I can't find the pertinent passage. Then again, I've been missing a lot of things lately...

CW

You and others keep repeating this, but everytime someone asks for a specific candidate, all we get is generalities.

WHO is the best man running, please tell us.

There isn't one.

ar10er...


I'm truly flattered that you deem me capable & worthy of organizing a letter writing campaign aimed at O' Reilly, but frankly it would be wasted on him.

His dislike for & misunderstanding of "assault weapons" has been know of since his May 2002 Playboy interview, when he stated the same kind of ignorant crap about the Second Amendment not protecting the ownership of "high power machine guns"  & how "extremist" gun owners need to accept this fact & get a life (I'm paraphrasing from memory, but you get the gist).

At the time, many gun owners from the numerous Internet shooting forums sent him E-mails, faxes & left voice mails at Fox News in hopes that they might correct his misguided notions. It didn't do any good then, and it won't do any good now!

I say fuck O' Reilly in the ear!  Don't watch his show, don't buy books, and don't waste your time & effort sending him your opinion.

Instead, concentrate on substantive political action that might actually result in the AW ban going the way of the dinosaur.  Please, take full advantage of [url=www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=203989]The Essential End the AW Ban Contact List & Sample Letter Thread[/url] , and take this opportunity to write & send another barrage of letters to the people & organizations in the thread.  They matter, O'Reilly doesn’t!

[I]Let's keep our eyes on the prize folks... We hold the key to winning this fight. Use it![/I]    

> You and others keep repeating this, but everytime someone asks for a specific candidate, all we get is generalities.

> WHO is the best man running, please tell us.


BADNARIK (hopefully) on the Libertarian ticket.  See his web page on gun control here:
http://www.badnarik.org/issues/second_amendment.html

a choice quote:  "If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment. "

That about says it all for me.

-jsb.

Who is Badnarik?  Has the Libertarian Party shaken loose Harry W. "We deserved Sept 11" Browne?

Okay, I went to the address.  I will definately give him serious consideration.