Home | About | Donate

No, Bill O'Reilly, Bloody Las Vegas Massacre Is Not "Price of Freedom"


#1

No, Bill O'Reilly, Bloody Las Vegas Massacre Is Not "Price of Freedom"

"Mass shootings are not the price of freedom," responded one among countless critics outraged by the former Fox News anchor. "They're the price civilians pay so that GOP blood stained pockets remain full from the NRA."


#2

I don’t own a gun and never will. Foreign terrorists don’t need to attack the USA… we have our own terrorist organization _ the NRA!


#3

Stick a lifetime’s worth of dirty gym socks in his gaping maw, poor the contents of the world’s spittoons into his nostrils.


#4

O’Reilly needs a taste of the freedom he so vociferously endorses.


#5

I second that emotion.


#6

It amazes me to no end how many sicko’s come out from under their rocks when something like Vegas happens…our “culture” really is sick and “they” make sure there is no health-care for the mentally depraved…chaos reins supreme.


#7

If you do the research you will find that each time gun laws come to the floor of the House or Senate for debate and a vote the congressional buildings get flooded with NRA and other gun lobbyists handing out bribe money. As many as 8 lobbyists for every one single legislator and they all have bribe money. So voting against gun regulation becomes very profitable for legislators. The traditional firearms at least give you time as a potential victim to take cover or try to run away from an assailant. So I am against any gun that can be aimed in a general direction and go through an entire clip of bullets. Otherwise, I have no issue with private gun ownership…


#8

In my opinion, what MLK said: “that my countries ( foreign policies) is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world” is at the root of the problem of American domestic violence. How many times have we heard what Bill O’ Reilly has said about the Las Vegas massacre being the " price of freedom" for massacring so many in foreign countries. I would say that until the America, Empire eliminates it’s foreign policies of being the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, its domestic violence will not end.


#9

Gary Null reminds us today that 95% of shooters in modern-era mass killings were on at least one, and in some cases two or more, FDA-approved and doctor-prescribed psychiatric meds—AMONG THE KNOWN EFFECTS OF WHICH ARE SUICIDAL AND/OR HOMICIDAL IDEATION.


#10

We live in a world in which a full retard like O’reiley can call the worst terrorist attack since 911 the price of freedom and make money out of it. I hope people like O’reilly get shot


#11

The price of freedom? Well in a way that is true, because to paraphrase Mr. Hedges: Brutality in US foreign policy, for the canard of bringing freedom to foreign countries leads to growing brutality at home.


#12

The sociopathic USAn’s capitalist conceptualization of “freedom” - i.e. the freedom of the gangster thug to prey on the weak, is sick. We don’t need that kind of “freedom”.


#13

Don’t know if I agree with this guy, but its good to see Olbermann still has his stuff like we used to see when he was on MSNBC:


#14

I own several guns, but am seriously questioning whether to keep them today. The problem I have with just dumping them is that: A) I don’t want any to go into the hands of anyone who would do something like Vegas with them, but more importantly than that is the simple fact that: I DON’T TRUST MY GOVERNMENT!!!

Qualified: I don’t trust my government to do what is in my best interest beyond keeping foreign invaders off of the N American continent; but I do trust them to act against my best interest if there was a chance that a corporation could somehow benefit.
I don’t trust my government to do the right thing when it comes to establishing a system that elevates everyone who wants to work for it, nor do I trust entities within it that are supposed to be there for our collective benefit despite being compelled to pay for them.
I don’t trust the police to do the right thing when it comes to official confrontation of potential criminals, but especially if they aren’t white.
I don’t trust the people currently in government not to lie to me about important things.
I don’t trust congress to make any laws that are in the interest of everyone first, and only the rich second.
I don’t trust that police are there to protect me from criminals, when they aren’t responding to crazy shooters.
I don’t trust that my government can protect me from over-reaching police.
In fact, I don’t trust my government not to come and target me, in any number of ways I can think of.

The gun debate problem will have to go here, for I am not the only one who feels this way, I just happen to look at things from a share-the-pie or progressive position. Most folks who own guns will tell you the exact same thing, but for some reason they look at things from an every-man-woman-and child-for-themselves position and are republicans and libertarians.

So if I fear my government enough to feel that I need to protect myself with the kinds of firearms that they use themselves (otherwise you can become a dark splatter spot) to the extent that I can get them, how do we get rid of them all? If our government was as responsive to us as some in Europe seem to be to their populations, I wouldn’t have a problem giving up my weapons. To throw a curve, many of those countries of which I write, allow their citizens to own firearms, although typically not assault weapons.

Now for the craziest part: In Australia, the guy who took away their guns was reviled, but he believes, as do most citizens that it was the right thing to do. They have a much better control over their government, and when I visited, I came away with the impression that it truly was there to benefit the people, not corporations. They have a $15 min wage, so they are redistributing wealth to some degree, successfully. What if the guy who passes gun laws in the US is …TRUMP?!! He’s almost surely to be a 1-termer when everyone gets off the couch to throw his ass out. But what if he’s the guy who’s here for the purpose of getting gun laws passed that take us off of our present course? I’d say his presidency would be a success if he could and would do that, and then go away, and let us fix the rest of this horrible mess he’s made.
(Disclaimer, while it’s a nice thought, the author does not believe Trump would do the right thing on this, or any other issue to the detriment of a corporation’s profits.)
What do you think, seriously? What a conundrum!


#15

Who really gives a shit about what this fuckhead says? He is a nobody. Only other fuckheads believe a word he says. (Yes ad hominem—illogical–who said we need logic to identify a fuckhead?)


#16

You may find this interesting:

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Most of the socialists I know are gun owners for many of the same reasons you cite.


#17

Works in a small country that is far less populated than the US. Therefore, gun ownership and use can be easily monitored. This is not to say that the US could not use this model to get gun ownership and usage under control for the sake of all unarmed potential shooting victims. But, in the US IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.


#18

As for O’Reilly, he would not lay down his life for any one or for his family members…no way! Flap away, mr. has-been.


#19

Given HIPPA and other patient confidentiality legislation, I wonder where/how Mr. Null would acquire such information. Sounds like a suspect stat to me.


#20

Thank you for that link. I can keep your observation accurate, as that would be the political leanings I have these days.
As an engineer, I have the capacity to do more than some, and totally didn’t mind doing what I could and happily pay my taxes, that I believe are too low to support the society I live in and am a part of.