The Strangest BrewA mix of politics, economics, libertarian ideals, general automotive info, entertainment of all sorts rounded out with some humor. Anything and everything can be a topic. The Strangest Brew, indeed…
I don’t think I have ever agreed with Bill O’Reilly this much, ever. It is kind-of scary. Keep in mind Bill is still a dipshit big government apologist/propagandist. I still don’t agree with a lot of what he says here but he gets a lot right (and I will ignore the hypocrisy of this grade-A cock-bag’s principles). When Boner (Boehner) and The Hag (Feinstein) agree Snowden is a “traitor” you know bipartenship is just code for how they are teaming up to give it to us all good and hard.
Strange bedfellows indeed.
And here is Piers Morgan properly citing the US Constitution and asking a pertinent question to this totalitarian fuck-nut Woolsey while Ron Paul gets the last word.
And here is the truly appropriate analysis by The Judge. I know Faux News got rid of Freedom Watch but I don’t know why they consistently let him destroy the typical neo-con warmongering talking points. Probably just to keep the libertarian viewers engaged into their spectacle.
Connecticut is proposing a bill that would ban any firearm that has a capacity greater than 1.
Yes, you read that correctly, 1, as in “one“, single bullet.
This is what they want us to accept being “armed” means…
Here is the text of the bill (a link will follow below)
Proposed Bill No. 122
January Session, 2013
LCO No. 543
Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY
SEN. MEYER, 12th Dist.
AN ACT CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS ON GUN USE.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round.
Cheaper Than Dirt is (well…was) a great site. It was a place to order bulk ammo to target shoot and find good deals on almost anything firearm related. I was looking to buy a few more Magpul PMags and check out some AR’s so I went online. I went to CTD and found that they are no longer a reputable retailer or representative of the 2nd ammendment. I visited their site today and found this…
They decided to suspend online firearm sales. Read about it HERE.
Dicks Sporting Goods has removed its semi-automatic rifles from their store shelves. Read HERE. A few Walmarts have followed this conga line of stupidity and cowardice.
Even the NRA is silent, they shut down their Facebook page. I am not sure if this was due to pressure applied to FB by the political demons in DC or the NRA thinking that if they run silent and saying nothing they will more likely get out unscathed. Their silence is defeaning.
This is when I realized how real the situation has become and how dark the road ahead is looking.
I remember the hysteria after Obama was elected, while at that first post-inauguration gunshow AR-15′s were heavy movers while being marked up with the Obama premium. But then the hysteria settled down along with the prices, the shelves got restocked and with ObamaCare being the centerpiece of tyrannical legislation, the gun-grabbing talk was not all that prevalent. Then the “Dark Knight Rises” shootings in Aurora and the Cops in NYC firing blindly into the crowds hoping to hit a suspect started the rumblings and demands for increased gun controls and restrictions.
Then the tragedy in Connecticut, a disturbed suburban man-boy uses an AR-15 and hand guns to murder more than 2 dozen people, most of which are 5-8 year old children. He likely was on the typical mind-altering/numbing psychotropic drugs peddled by the likes of Merck and Pfizer. It seems he played out his violent fantasy in a place where there were sure to be people incapable of defending themselves.
This event hits home for me, my wife grew up in CT. We will be spending the early part of the Christmas holiday there. I am sure there will be much talk of the atrocity that occurred. My wife was also a kindergarten teacher for 7 years before we had our son. Reading about this on Friday morning made me cry. But tearing down the freedom of the individual to defend oneself from home invaders, drugged up psychopaths or a tyrannical government is never going to be the solution.
The so-called conservative Joe Scarborough declares that inaction can’t be allowed to continue. He is endorsing “stricter gun controls.” He shouldn’t be allowed to utter terms like “libertarian ideals.” He’s in favor of “freedom” when it is easy but not when it is messy or when it hits too close to home for him. I am not going to dissect this cowardly rant by Scarborough, he was one of the MSM mouthpieces that typically gave Ron Paul a fair shake but I am deeply disappointed in his lack of principle. Principles do not mean anything if you abandon them during times when it is inconvenient.
So political action is needed? When have the results of political action ever yielded results that lead to anything but more control for the powerbrokers in DC and our freedoms being assaulted?
As I was getting ready to go to sleep last night I was flipping through the channels and caught a segment of that idiotic wind-bag O’Reilly. He really does not know anything. The terms he utters like “military-style” and “heavy” rifles need to go by the wayside. I laughed out loud when he said “AR-47.” They must give away Harvard diplomas in cracker jack boxes. I will give him some credit for displaying some of the data out there that shows increasingly stricter gun controls do not decrease gun violence. Watch below if you want.
But then around the 2:30 mark O’Reilly says that “…the US Constitution allows US citizens arm themselves.” That is such patentedly untrue statement. The right to self-defense existed before and irregardless of the scriblings on any government parchment; including the US Constitution (that is typically used as toilet paper today). It is a natural right. Just because the typical group of murders/criminals occupy the seats of government at that time recognize it or not is irrelevant. Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity, he didn’t allow it to exist. Similarly the Founding Fathers only explicitly stated what was already true. The right to self-defense was a natural right and it was the government’s responsibility to not only never infringe on that right but also protect it against would be aggressors. To think that government “allows” us to have guns is to imply that self-defense is a privelege, a privelege that can be revoked if our owners deem it necessary. It is not a privelege, an example of a privelege is how we the citizens allow the government the privelege of existing. This type of wrongheaded thinking is why Bill O’Reilly is a horrible excuse for a man, American and human being. It is also why the idea that was “America” is essentially dead.
For these “blow-dryers”, freedom is so important when on a campaign trail or bloviating in front of the camera on a show with their name in the title. But these people are not prepared for freedom, real freedom scares them. Freedom is not perfect, it isn’t always going to be nicely packaged with a bow on top but it is the only alternative to tyranny. These sorry excuses are not men, they are cowards who want their children to be safe slaves instead of free men and women. They are the enablers of the oppressors.
There is no absolute safety, only the illusion of safety.
I have been becoming more and more despondent regarding the government school system, this is just another nail in the coffin for them. Making it a crime to seek the means of defending yourself and school children is nothing short of being an accomplice to the murders committed. When it is time for my son to start “formal schooling” the government schools are looking like an even poorer option than they did a week ago. No early education teacher working as a government drone anywhere will do a better job than my wife and our home will never be a “gun-free zone” so they will be safer there than almost any other place. Both of us are trained and armed. I could leave the house knowing that they won’t be helpless targets for cowardly maniacs to slaughter.
People are scared of guns, I know many that don’t like being in the presence of a firearm and even refuse to touch them. It is an inanimate object, a tool that can be used for good or for evil. If good people refuse to use them or actively restrict other good people from using them we will all become slaves to those who are evil.
The big government types always decree the same thing, whether it is a healthcare issue, an infrastructure issue, an economic issue, a debt issue or a crime issue. They need to increase regulations and we need to give them more control so they can steer us to safety. But this is what is leading us to our destruction.
Lack of strict gun laws is not what caused the death of 20 children. The strict gun laws already in place are a major contributing factor to why so many of them became victims. The mall shooter in Oregon turned his gun on himself after he realized there was an armed citizen nearby. The mall was a gun-free zone which is why he chose it. This person likely saved lives by ignoring an idiotic law, if only more people were smart enough to ignore more immoral laws.
John Lott has done quite a bit of research on the subject and found a startling correlation:
“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
Guns are not evil, it is the use of aggressive violence that is evil. And how are those demanding “stricter gun regulations” and bans are going to enforce their new rules? By using force, coercion and aggression against people who own firearms but have done nothing to harm anyone. This use of force by the unruly mob of scared sheeple is exactly why the Founders made sure to explicitly recognize the 2nd Ammendment.
If banning firearms is a solution to ending violence I propose the most murderous entity the world has ever known be disarmed. If you want to stop gun violence then the first people who should be banned from having firearms is the murderers and sociopaths that are in government.
So I haven’t done an O’Really post in a while. Personally there was a fair amount of stress in other aspects of my life and I was on a strict regiment of avoiding all things aneurysm-inducingly stupid. This meant I had to stay away from anything Bill O’Reilly related. I still haven’t even listened to the Stewart/O’Reilly debate.
But I just couldn’t stay away any longer. I stumbled across a video by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and then had to watch the original clip he was referencing.
Here Bill is talking to an atheist, around the 2:00 minute mark his proof that God exists is that the “tide goes in and the tide goes out.”
My aim is not to make this post about religion. I grew up in a catholic home, went to catholic school most of my pre-college years, but am not a “practicing” catholic today. Personally I am not a big fan of atheism either. Mainly because it is a belief structure bordering on becoming a religion onto itself.
It’s more that I am anti “-ism”. I prefer critical thinking, individuality and acknowledging that as humans we don’t know everything today; we still won’t know everything tomorrow but the perpetual pursuit of that unknown knowledge and wisdom is paramount. Believing and knowing are not interchangeable concepts. For anyone to say they know with 100% certainty that there is or isn’t a God or Creator is extremely hubristic in my opinion.
So let’s move on. Simply stated, O’Reilly is a dipsh!t, no news there. If he were living in Puritan times and he saw a woman do something he couldn’t explain he would be the first to declare her a witch and demand she be burned at the stake.
In other aspects Bill is no moron, he is a manipulative person. He is very selective in his use of the English language. The billboards are trying to get people to question what they “believe” and are not an insult even if he finds it insulting. An insult has to have the intent to insult by the person stating it, for someone to be insulted the existence of intent by the person saying it can be present or not. To tell someone else that they meant to insult someone even when they say they didn’t is the type of game played in kindergarten.
Stating an opinion and broadcasting that opinion with the consent of the broadcaster/owner is not an “attack.” No person has the right to not be offended/insulted. This is where Bill once again shows his true colors, he is an authoritarian at heart, he wants people to think as he does and if they openly disagree then that is an “attack.” He is likely implying that because this should be construed as an “attack” it should not be allowed by the so-called authorities even though he doesn’t outright state this. This is similar to stating an opinion is “dangerous.” These “attacks” are nothing more than free-speech and they are not coercing people to do anything, unlike many of the entities that Bill supports on a regular basis.
Here is Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s reaction/comments (the original video I saw)
I personally like listening to NDGT whenever I can. He is brilliant but also personable; this allows him to explain complex ideas/things to people not as intelligent as him (which is almost everyone) while not being condescending.
The most important thing he points out is near the end. My intepretation of his comments is that if believing in “God”, praying to him and attending various services with other believers makes you a person happy then its a good thing. But if accepting that the things that can’t be explained today are nothing but the magic of some omnipotent being and this ceases your desire to understand these occurances further then that is a bad thing, it would be tragic ignorance.
This was forwarded to me by a buddy who watched multiple OReilly clips in a row. I don’t know what sins he was atoning for that made him torture himself like that.
OReilly does his normal thing and brings on 2 “sides” to be fair and balanced. That perpetuates the false idea that there are in fact only 2 sides and not infinite possible sides. It also can never be fair and balanced because he isn’t a mediator; he interjects his own opinions perpetually and often talks over the “side” that is “wrong.”
I simply don’t like that the kids would be forced to attend an assembly for or against drug/alcohol/sex. That discussion is to be handled by parents, schools need to stick with Math, Reading etc…, you know, the stuff they already can’t handle.
But the thing Bill is really wrong about is the crushing of true dialogue. Those boys weren’t 12 year olds, they were probably “active” and have tried “substances.”
“Mmmm-kay, cuz drugs are bad.” That’s what is supposed to go for dialogue. No kid is going to prohibit themselves from something because they were told “it’s bad.” In fact that is going to make them more inclined to try it.
They have to understand consequences. But real consequences, not the artifical ones of the government. Govt’s fake consequence is simply a reinforcement of the idiotic false truth that you “shouldn’t do it cuz it’s bad” but followed up with, “and if you do it, I will f’n spank you.”
Consequences like addiction and suicide are real valid reasons but they are not universal truths like our masters want us to think they are. I hear people complain about kids and young adults not being responsible. That is not a result of a lack of more stringent laws, it is the result of them being brought up looking up to the Nanny State and perpetually asking permission to do do anything and everything. Where would these people be if they weren’t judging everything as “good” or “bad” and thus legal or illegal.
I am glad Jesse had the exact transcript to better explain the context of the comments Bill had an issue with and then counter Bill with some of his own medicine.
You can’t complain about people acting like children, when they are perpetually treated like children. The issue is that the collectivist love this and need it so they can keep their thrones of judgement. Regardless of what Bill tries to project, he is a collectivist at heart, he thinks he knows better than everyone else and others should be forced to accept his opinions as fact. He rarely fails at being a douche.
I have had this one saved up for a little while, I actually saw it right when it aired months ago and was blown away by how O’Reilly didn’t even seem to know how to pronounce “Keynesian.” How someone in his position could be reporting/commenting on the news and even referencing the economy for as many years as he has and not know anything about “Keynesian Economic Theory” is beyond me. He speaks regularly to Stossel, Beck and Napolitano to name a few that have atleast some knowledge of this idiotic economic theory. Even that sh!t-for brains Sean Hannity probably knows of JM Keynes. I suspect O’Reilly was just being dishonest and “playing stupid” instead of actually being stupid here. He chose to act this way to further the idea that normal people (like Bill) should look at the ideas that Ron Paul discusses as fringe as if RP just walked off a spaceship.
O’Reilly proclaims the government should stay out of the economy but once again sheds his sheepskin to allow his statist wolfhood to be visible when he asks “Who is gonna run the country?” The idea that the government should or can “run the country” is the root cause of so many of our problems. When they say this, they are really asking who should run the lives of the people and play parent to all the children/serfs/citizens.
Stossel is wrong on one thing though, free people don’t run the country eventhough they should.
O’Reilly is not a free market person and he isn’t actually against speculation. He is for it if it causes the price of gasoline to go down (which it often does), no market goes just up or just down, it fluctuates, there are billions of participants in the global oil market.
So he doesn’t like the way futures markets work so he thinks it should operate per his vision, this sort of thinking is why he is no different than the Obamas, Bernankes and Harry Reid’s of the world. Ultimately he doesn’t like high gas prices and he plays to his audience who he says these speculators are harming so he can shape the moral compass (or lack of one) to justify his proclamations. People with situational ethics cease to have ethics. He is no different than Van Jones or Sunstein who believe the ends justify the means, as long as it is their means.
At least he admits his collectivist stance just after the 3 minute mark, he thinks that property can’t be owned by a property owner, it is all “ours”, “We the People” own it. But there is no ”we”, there is only the government and its regulatory thugs. There is no market that is immune from government intervention, whether it is onions, or oil, or raw milk. All his bloviating causes us to not focus on why oil prices are high, they are high because the value of the dollar is constantly being destroyed by the Federal Reserve.
Bill is a manipulative douche-canoe who plays on the emotions and pain of the hoi polloi, he should be ridiculed and openly mocked for the small minded fool he is. The worst part in my opinion is where he is dismissive to Stossel’s example of the government regulating onions. He is not interested in presenting facts or the truth so people can make up their minds, he is a spin doctor. I have one question for O’Reilly whose solutions include taxes or even more regulation. Name one product or service whose quality has increased or cost has decreased because it was taxed or regulated to a degree equal to or more than the current oil market.
Oh wait, lowering the price or increasing the quality isn’t what he is actually after, and knows this, he just wants “economic justic” (Bill’s own words); but I am not sure he understands the meaning of the word “justice.” He is only interested in imposing force and coercion on others. I have a feeling he is going to get a shot at Bloomberg’s WPIA belt soon.
Bill O’Reilly is extremely mis-informed about weapons and showers stupidity blatantly. What is a heavy weapon according to him, a semi-auto rifle?
Also it was not 60,000 rounds, it was 6,000, for someone who shoots regulary and has multiple caliber guns that is not a huge amount of ammo. Typical bulk ammo comes in packages of 500-1000 rounds. An hour at the range could chew easily chew up 150-300 rounds. Also, ammo just like everything else of value is going up in price nearly every day, so when it is on sale today and will cost more tomorrow, smart people buy in bulk.
What is it that the shootings like Columbine, V-Tech and Aurora have in common? They occur in gun-free zones, which ensures a plethora of unarmed law abiding targets/citizens. If these shooters are so “insane” why isn’t there ever a shooting at a gun-show or at the firing range?
O’Reilly’s worst offense is that he is a collectivist that resounds the false premise that the best response to a tragedy is more laws and more government involvement. There are already laws on the books. No increase in the # of laws or registration lists or even prohibition of fire arms is going to end violence. Violence is committed because the person willfully chose to commit the act. Taking away their most useful tool does not remove the will to do harm, it would end violence just like eliminating forks and spoons would put an end to obesity. According to O’Reilly reasoning, we don’t need to eliminate them, just register forks and spoons of a certain size.
Watch for yourself, I am just glad that Chaffetz put him in his place.