I knew there was a reason I didn't like O'Reilly, and I found out why tonight when I caught a few moments of him acting like he knew what he was talking about with guns.
You just NOW figured out BildoReally is a moron? Really?
O
one_more_cast
Guest
Oreilly really messed up this time. Just like the anti-gun crowd, he was ignorant of the laws and firearms in general. Not sure what 60K rounds had to do with it as it would only take a 100 or so do wreak havoc like the nut cases do.
G
GLGAR
Guest
. Thanks, been around quite a while, just not big on posting about guns or opinions I may or may not have. O' Reilly pushed the wrong button, just a total clueless blowhard.Well he did get you to stop lurking and post your first comment.
Welcome aboard.
There goes the no spin zone.
He's going to lose a lot of viewers...he's lost me.
The only language a media elite understands is when they lose viewers.
Perhaps he will move back to whatever liberal elite network he was part of ...or maybe join the VIEW as the "conservative" voice.
Last edited:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/07/25...er-calls-for-more-gun-control-misinformation/
Guess uncle Ted disagrees also
Guess uncle Ted disagrees also
Oreily sounds like a jackass.
I would have never noticed because I've never watched him. Or any of those guys.
But I have noticed all these guys "trembling with fear" over how many rounds of ammo this guy bought. And I've wondered how/why they thought that was the problem? So he bought 6000 rounds of 5.56mm on the internet? If he walked into the theater and fired off 200 of them.... does it really matter how many of them he bought? One reporter on the story went to the same online place and showed how he could (gasp) even order 60,000 rounds right now. OK... how does that make you more deadly than say 500 rounds? You think you are going to go someplace and somehow fire off all 60,000 of those rounds at once??? Maybe the truly, truly bad guys should buy a million rounds! Then they could tie them all together and make a nuclear weapon!
Same thing seems to happen when they talk about how "many" guns somebody has. Let's say Fred the local guy has a gun collection. He screws up big time and beats his wife into the wall and the cops come. They arrest him and take him away. The wife says he has guns and she would feel better if his guns were taken away. So they start hauling them away. The media shows up and reports on the "arsenal." The guy's beautiful guns get thrown in handfuls into squad cars in front of the cameras. Sometimes onto the lawn on blue tarps. "A tragedy was averted today when this arsenal of guns was seized by local police." Maybe the guy started out with a few guns and gradually bought more. Ten then twenty then thirty. Woke up one day and laughed when he realized he somehow owned over a hundred guns now. But seriously, how does a person with over a hundred guns become "more deadly" than a person with twenty guns? Is he somehow supposed to line them up side by side by side all over the house? Load each one of them and then run around shooting them all equally until they are empty? Wouldn't it make more sense just to reload them? Heck, anybody with a lot of guns knows that you can't even find ammo for some of them half of the time!!!
And why is somebody who owns over a hundred guns more deadly than somebody who owns over a hundred bicycles anyway???? Some people are interested in guns. Some people are interested in bicycles. Doesn't mean either person is interested in killing people.
Last thing and I'll shut up. After all, this is preaching to the choir. The stupid 100 round beta mag. Here is the absolute most basic question that you would think any journalism major could think of themselves. Politician stands up in front of the journalist and starts waving the Beta mag around and shouting about how dangerous these are and how they are dangerous weapons of war. How they have no use but in combat, etc. Why the heck can't somebody ever raise their hand and ask, "Can you explain to me why US combat soldiers aren't issued them? Or why they don't buy them and use them? If they are so deadly and perfectly reliable, why don't the Special Forces and all combat forces use them????" Of course the idiot politician would swallow his/her microphone because they don't actually KNOW a darn thing about guns and/or the US military. But perhaps somebody there would be able to explain that they are 1)heavy when loaded 2) prone to malfunction when dirty and mostly 3) just nowhere near as reliable as a good 30 round mag.
That's why I yell at my TV every time some idiot politician starts talking about making them illegal. It's Darwin's Law you morons. Let the Mall Ninjas learn how to shoot with YouTube videos. They will buy "the cool stuff" that will fail under stress. And since they won't have actually trained with prior military service or real hands on training "in the dirt and mud" they will be unable to clear the jams. And they will stand there with all their fancy stuff they bought online but never really got muscle memory with and fail. And we can be grateful for that. Why the heck would we want to make high capacity plastic gizmos illegal? Heck, maybe somebody will come up with a 500 round Beta mag that the next guy will try to drag into someplace. Imagine how much better that would be than somebody with a belt full of 30 round Pmags and the training and cool head to quickly swap them out.
The media and guns! They love to talk about them but they sure as heck don't know what they are talking about!
Gregg
But I have noticed all these guys "trembling with fear" over how many rounds of ammo this guy bought. And I've wondered how/why they thought that was the problem? So he bought 6000 rounds of 5.56mm on the internet? If he walked into the theater and fired off 200 of them.... does it really matter how many of them he bought? One reporter on the story went to the same online place and showed how he could (gasp) even order 60,000 rounds right now. OK... how does that make you more deadly than say 500 rounds? You think you are going to go someplace and somehow fire off all 60,000 of those rounds at once??? Maybe the truly, truly bad guys should buy a million rounds! Then they could tie them all together and make a nuclear weapon!
Same thing seems to happen when they talk about how "many" guns somebody has. Let's say Fred the local guy has a gun collection. He screws up big time and beats his wife into the wall and the cops come. They arrest him and take him away. The wife says he has guns and she would feel better if his guns were taken away. So they start hauling them away. The media shows up and reports on the "arsenal." The guy's beautiful guns get thrown in handfuls into squad cars in front of the cameras. Sometimes onto the lawn on blue tarps. "A tragedy was averted today when this arsenal of guns was seized by local police." Maybe the guy started out with a few guns and gradually bought more. Ten then twenty then thirty. Woke up one day and laughed when he realized he somehow owned over a hundred guns now. But seriously, how does a person with over a hundred guns become "more deadly" than a person with twenty guns? Is he somehow supposed to line them up side by side by side all over the house? Load each one of them and then run around shooting them all equally until they are empty? Wouldn't it make more sense just to reload them? Heck, anybody with a lot of guns knows that you can't even find ammo for some of them half of the time!!!
And why is somebody who owns over a hundred guns more deadly than somebody who owns over a hundred bicycles anyway???? Some people are interested in guns. Some people are interested in bicycles. Doesn't mean either person is interested in killing people.
Last thing and I'll shut up. After all, this is preaching to the choir. The stupid 100 round beta mag. Here is the absolute most basic question that you would think any journalism major could think of themselves. Politician stands up in front of the journalist and starts waving the Beta mag around and shouting about how dangerous these are and how they are dangerous weapons of war. How they have no use but in combat, etc. Why the heck can't somebody ever raise their hand and ask, "Can you explain to me why US combat soldiers aren't issued them? Or why they don't buy them and use them? If they are so deadly and perfectly reliable, why don't the Special Forces and all combat forces use them????" Of course the idiot politician would swallow his/her microphone because they don't actually KNOW a darn thing about guns and/or the US military. But perhaps somebody there would be able to explain that they are 1)heavy when loaded 2) prone to malfunction when dirty and mostly 3) just nowhere near as reliable as a good 30 round mag.
That's why I yell at my TV every time some idiot politician starts talking about making them illegal. It's Darwin's Law you morons. Let the Mall Ninjas learn how to shoot with YouTube videos. They will buy "the cool stuff" that will fail under stress. And since they won't have actually trained with prior military service or real hands on training "in the dirt and mud" they will be unable to clear the jams. And they will stand there with all their fancy stuff they bought online but never really got muscle memory with and fail. And we can be grateful for that. Why the heck would we want to make high capacity plastic gizmos illegal? Heck, maybe somebody will come up with a 500 round Beta mag that the next guy will try to drag into someplace. Imagine how much better that would be than somebody with a belt full of 30 round Pmags and the training and cool head to quickly swap them out.
The media and guns! They love to talk about them but they sure as heck don't know what they are talking about!
Gregg
Similar threads
- Sale Price: 1000$
