After decades of holding the party line on the Second Amendment, broadcaster and conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly changed his stand on gun control in the post-Orlando world. Something of a remarkable turn of events:

There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” he said. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to 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 the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals,” he continued. “They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale. And the states, the individual states, should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their own people.”

O’Reilly said new laws were “definitely needed” in the face of new terrorist threats and mass murders.

“The FBI and other federal agencies need the power to stop suspected terrorists or other evildoers from buying weapons,” he said. “That law needs to be very precise.”

“Also, gun dealers all across America should be required to report the sale of certain kinds of guns, heavy weapons, directly to the FBI,” he continued. “Not handguns, not talking about that, but other weapons that would be defined by Congress. That is a sane approach and would make it a lot tougher for the Omar Mateens of the world to get the weaponry to kill.”

I don’t imagine too many of his fellow travelers will follow suit but it does change the dynamic on the conversation. With the filibuster starting in the Senate today, we’ll see if something new begrudging and too little bill finally comes out of Washington.

Just a side note…it is interesting that Yahoo is reporting this on their finance page.

4 Responses to Bill O’Reilly Changes His Stance On Gun Control

  1. John Casper says:

    Ed, thanks.

    My rushed reading is that O’Reilly’s taking the lazy route blazed by Democrats, Big Data, and the largely privately owned–federally funded–national security apparatus. Once the federal government decides you, “might,” be a terrorist, they don’t have to tell you; but they can block you from exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.

    Hope I’m wrong.

    • nonquixote says:

      Good catch JC,

      Russ Feingold is for doing something major to correct the easy access to these weapons of mass destruction, I believe, but he did question the bill being discussed on banning firearm access to people listed on the “no fly,” as people not being given due process guaranteed under the constitution and how hard it would be for anyone to clear themselves later, after being deemed guilty on essentially hearsay accusations.

      Decades of consistency on the constitution from Russ, who warned us about the dangers of enacting the “Patriot,” act.

  2. MadCityVoter says:

    Interesting. That certainly wasn’t the line O’Reilly was taking on Colbert on Monday night.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.