Bill O’Reilly might be one of the biggest assholes in the history of humanity. It takes a certain amount of self-delusion to stand upon a perch of higher morality, casting aspersions on everyone you think doesn’t share your perfect ethics, only to be a disgusting, sexually predatory garbage human. But it takes an exceptionally big turd to try to pawn off mass shootings as something Americans have to accept “cuz freedom.” But, that’s exactly what the tall drink of dickhead did this week in an op-ed on his website.
This op-ed to be precise:
Once again, the big downside of American freedom is on gruesome display. A psychotic gunman in Las Vegas has committed the worst mass murder in U. S. history. Tonight on the No Spin News, we will analyze the horror in Vegas as well as the big controversies in Puerto Rico and the NFL.
If Bill O’Reilly thinks mass shootings are the “price we pay for freedom,” maybe the old bastard should volunteer to be shot in the next one. I’m sure he just loves picking up the tab for his golf buddies when they hit the links/go trawling for women to sexually harass. So c’mon, Bill, put your name on the dotted line, and sign up! Hell, we’ll make sure you’re not killed, just winged. That way, once a year, you can pay everyone’s Freedom Tab™ for us.
Sound good, Billy?
O’Reilly’s piece was so fraught with stupidity, so replete with straw men and opinions presented as facts that I had to refute it directly. The good news is that O’Reilly is such an intellectual gold fish that it doesn’t take very much effort for even a clowny clown myself to poke enough holes in his arguments to deflate it, and his giant, hot wind filled head. So here we go.
Once again, the big downside of American freedom is on gruesome display. A psychotic gunman in Las Vegas has committed the worst mass murder in U. S. history.
Right away Bill tries to setup his opinion as fact. According to him, the only choices we have are freedom with mass shootings, or oppression without. In his mind, this isn’t a false choice, it’s just plain and simple reality. But that’s, um, stupid as all get out. The truth is that free societies also put restrictions on things for the betterment of all. The “fire in a crowded theater” analogy is old, but it still works. If we can limit the First, we can limit the Second Amendment. And to suggest that if we want to be a liberty-minded, free society, we just have to accept as a part of life mass shootings is absurd.
We shouldn’t let ourselves be cowed into submission on this point; we have the freedom and liberty to demand our elected officials try a little bit harder to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
64-year-old Stephen Paddock, who lived in Nevada, began firing from a hotel window about 10pm Pacific time last night. His targets were folks attending a music festival below him. When it was all over, more than 50 human beings lay dead, 400 plus wounded. Paddock apparently killed himself as police closed in on him.
The murderer had a number of deadly weapons in his room and you can count on the gun control debate to ramp up.
Stunningly, O’Reilly actually wrote five sentences that were just facts that contained no biased rhetoric. There’s nothing to quibble with here in his description of the events. So let’s just leave it there. And he’s even correct in assuming that talking about gun control again will be a thing in America. I mean, it kinda makes sense to someone like me that it would.
If a power plant blew up, killing fifty and wounding hundreds more, you’re damn right we’d be talking about whether we can do more to make power plants safer. So why the fuck doesn’t the same theory apply to guns? A constitutional amendment? Big fucking whoop. At one point in this country our constitution prohibited adults from having a beer. You’ll pardon me if I don’t consider words written decades before I was even born to be more important to me than the life I am living now, in my own time on this rock.
But having covered scores of gun-related crimes over the years, I can tell you that government restrictions will not stop psychopaths from harming people.
They will find a way.
Is everyone else as sick of hearing this argument as I am? Essentially what Bill is saying is for us to do nothing, literally nothing, about every single thing in life. No, really, that’s the logical extension of his argument. Because if government restrictions don’t stop people from harming others, what’s the point of having laws at all? Murder laws? Fuck ’em, they’re just government restrictions. Rape laws? Suck a fuck! Those are just government restrictions too!
The idea that we’re supposed to just go, “Oh well, might as well take all the gun laws off the books” because dipshits like O’Reilly don’t get how laws work is hilarious to me. Conservatives really need to disabuse themselves of his notion that all laws are made to prevent crime. Some are just meant to punish, and hopefully deter people from committing the same crimes. But in terms of gun laws, the purpose is to restrict what kinds of guns are easily available.
And here’s where the gunfucks will tell me about black markets and how dumb I am. And to that, I laugh. Because black markets are already illegal. Punishing that activity already happens, so again, we find ourselves seeing conservatives just basically telling us the best course of action is no course of action. Because when you’re facing a cancer diagnosis, it’s best to just sit there and do nothing because putting restrictions on the cancer won’t stop other cancers in other people’s bodies.
Public safety demands logical gun laws but the issue is so polarizing and emotional that little will be accomplished as there is no common ground.
Oh, well, if Capt. Grabby Paws McGee says there’s no common ground, then by all means let’s listen to him instead of, you know, finding common ground, am I right?
The NRA and its supporters want easy access to weapons, while the left wants them banned.
Half right, fuck-o. The NRA most definitely wants easy access to weapons, but most people on the left just want our laws to do everything we reasonably can to check someone out before we start letting them arm themselves to the teeth. Sure, it sucks when you’re an adult and you’re told you can’t have something, but that’s not a fucking argument against the rule of law, or laws in general. We make bargains with our rights all the time, to deny that is to live in a world where tax cuts for the wealthy trickle down wealth to the plebs.
This is the price of freedom. Violent nuts are allowed to roam free until they do damage, no matter how threatening they are.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. What the fuck? Taking Bill’s argument to its logical conclusion, you have to assume that he thinks “violent nuts” have a right to hurt people. That’s basically what he’s arguing — violent people have a right to guns because they have “freedom” in general. This kind of thinking might have been all the rage in the late 18th century, but it makes absolutely no sense in a modern context. No right is unfettered or unrestricted. Logical reasons exist to limit every right in some capacity. But ironically, in bringing up “violent nuts,” O’Reilly shows just how cravenly pro-gun he is. Because the thing is, we should be trying to identify these “violent nuts” so we can a) keep guns out of their hands and b)get them the help they need so they’re not “violent nuts” and are as close to healthy individuals as they can be.
What he’s saying isn’t untrue; violent people have constitutional rights as well. But responsible adults also know effort is kind of a big deal. Trying to remedy a glaring problem, such as gun violence, while also protecting everyone’s constitutional rights, is difficult, but it is entirely possible. Old assholes like O’Reilly just want you to think there’s no way to come together, because he has a vested interest in keeping his audience lathered up on pro-gun bullshit.
The Second Amendment is clear that Americans have a right to arm themselves for protection. Even the loons.
Actually, no it’s not. It makes no mention of “loons” or people with mental health problems. Probably because they didn’t exactly have much knowledge of what mental illness is. But something tells me that they, like most rational humans, could be convinced that certain restrictions on who gets a gun are totally fine. Do we really think if we showed James Madison a news clipping about the asshole who just shot over 500 people in a matter of moments whether average citizens needed that kind of firepower, that he wouldn’t laugh at you?
I mean, I’m already laughing at you for suggesting that, but do you really think most of the founders would have any problem with telling mentally unstable people they can’t have a gun? Or people who are suspected of plotting an attack against other Americans? What a farce.
Bill O’Reilly is the diarrhea of thinkers, which is not to say he does much of what we’d recognize as thinking anyway.