Quote of the day—Sean O’Reilly

The Collaborative Firearms Education Initiative involves two steps. First, a push to get the CDC funding to actively catalog and study gun related violence much as it does motor vehicle fatalities and a push to increase the educational requirements for firearm purchases with the NRA being the main organization for implementation and provision of this education.

We need reliable, unbiased information and understanding of it. Without a complete understanding of the problem we are left only with speculation and theories.

Secondly, instead of looking to limit accessibility to firearms in efforts against the NRA and other political groups, increasing the level of education necessary to purchase firearms in conjunction with the NRA.

To drive a vehicle on streets, hunt on public land , or carry a concealed weapon, every individual is required to attend formal and regulated training and be licenced.

Sean O’Reilly
October 12, 2016
A third way on gun control allows both sides to win
[Most of the vehement opposition to gun ownership comes in the aftermath of a mass shooting atrocity. Nearly all of those have a strong mental illness component. The major source of gun deaths are due to gangs and the illegal drug trade. While I can see some policy changes making a significant difference there I can’t see how requiring training could help. And training and licensing for hunting and concealed weapons is already the norm for nearly all states.

And if he thinks these restrictions are acceptable for the specific enumerated right of gun ownership I don’t think he envisioned the slippery slope of applying similar restrictions on religion, speech, freedom of association, and abortion.

I suspect O’Reilly doesn’t really understand the current situation and hasn’t thought through what he does know.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sean O’Reilly

  1. So he doesn’t understand that CDC doesn’t study motor vehicle fatalities, the NHTSA does.

    • Nor does he understand that to get a hunting license or a concealed carry permit, one needs to attend a class.

      Not only is he Astroturf, as to the subject he is attempting to sound so even-handed and reasonable on, his ignorance is exceeded only by his arrogance in assuming that he already knows everything he could need to know to solve the problem for the less-educated out there who are merely being obstructionist.

      • Class for a CC permit? In some states, yes. Not in NH. Not in states with Constitutional Carry either, of course.

  2. He sure looks like another astroturf guy. Why would the NRA give him the time of day? Or if they did, why would anyone continue as an NRA member?

  3. O’Reilly, and you all, are engaged in Progressive (authoritarian) thinking. “We” should do this. “We” should not do that. “We” (the smarter, better people) will use our superior intelligence and superior data collating abilities, along with our unquestionably superior compassion and ability to know and care about the well-being of those we believe to be inferior to us, and once we’ve made all the right decisions, then “We” will inform the masses below us, and impose our plan on them by force.

    So long as you’re looking at problems with that mindset, and all of you are, you’re working against the American principles. What was that quote;

    “If they can get us asking the wrong questions, they won’t have to worry about the answers.”

    This post is good example of that. They’ve got you asking what the smart people in government (along with you) should impose, by force, on the less-smart people for their own good. Once you’re engaged with that question, you’ve lost the war no matter the answer.

    At this point I could list some examples of some of the stupidest people on the planet being in positions of political power, but even that would miss the point entirely. It’s not about who’s smarter than whom, or who should be considered qualified to make their own decisions and who shouldn’t.

    If all of the very smartest people on the planet were in government (a contradiction in and of itself), and none other, then encroaching on your rights is still none of their business, it is still a federal crime, and it may cross the line into treason.

    Smart people don’t get a pass. If anything the truly smart people pose the most deadly threat to liberty, once they start thinking they can, or should, “centrally plan” things for other people as though they were gods or kings, and their subjects are too pathetic to make their own decisions.

    • “If all of the very smartest people on the planet were in government (a contradiction in and of itself)…”

      Bingo. You win the prize for brilliant insight.

      People who think that the masses need to be controlled because they are so stupid, forget that the people who run the government are selected from this very pool.

      Why should we have brilliant leaders in government? Hint, we don’t! We have those with giant egos and aspirations to control us and get filthy rich via graft and corruption. The very people who should be in prison. See: the Hildabeast.

  4. “We need reliable, unbiased information and understanding of it. Without a complete understanding of the problem we are left only with speculation and theories.” And we are going to get this from the CDC and political hacks? And the mission creep – how is gun violence a disease? In any event, maybe he should read John Lott. Or maybe he has – and didn’t get the answers he wants?

  5. Bingo. Mandatory training, while sounding like a good idea, would be a minor hindrance to the law-abiding, no barrier at all to the lawless, and, in the long run, a slippery slope towards hampering a Constitutional right.

    I’d feel much happier if he suggested something that punished people AFTER the crime, not before. (Before the crime, of course, the only way is to punish us all!)

  6. I don’t suspect that he does not understand the situation, I’m sure he does not understand the situation.

    On the other hand, I suspect he is in favor of allowing the deep pockets of the firearms manufacturers to be picked for the crimes and negligence of others. I am sure he has not thought how that policy would play out, not only with firearms, but for other devices capable of causing great harm to others when misused. He should know that the Plaintiff’s Bar (Mr. O’Reilly, that’s the group of lawyers who specialize in suing on behalf of people who are injured by others) is salivating over the idea of being able to include the manufacturer of an automobile as a defendant in every lawsuit for personal injuries caused by an automobile accident.

  7. I get the impression that his plan is to nationalize the NRA, subvert it, kill it, hollow out the corpse and then wear it as a skin suit. You know, like they did the universities.

Comments are closed.