Okay, my "combat nap" is completed. I am refreshed and ready to assume my leadership role in blogging the defense of the 2A and the Constitution itself. My strategies:
- A good offense is the best defense. Few football games or political games are won on defense alone.
- We need a warning system to help us decide who is helping to defend the 2A and who is pretending, and especially what pretense of defense might be weakening the 2A further.
- Now, as a tool to help readers decide which real defenders to support and which phony "defenders" to reject, we have the "Squish Alerts", which, as far as I know, are a new tool for those concerned with saving the Constitution. If any readers know of anyone else's blog having this focus, please advise me in comments.
Without further ado, allow me to introduce my first Squish.
#1 Squish, and he rates the designation, is Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly. I actually believe he doesn't like the idea of having a Second Amendment, he hasn't connected the dots and obviously doesn't know a thing about it. He is a frequent commentator on controversies relating to the 2A. Yesterday, for example, he interviewed Sen. Marco Rubio, who might yet rate a Squish Alert of his own. In the interview with an obviously over-caffeinated Rubio, Bill O'Reilly said that he doesn't mind the idea of Federal registration of all firearms, and he supports the idea of "universal background checks", which are simply a way of banning private sales and transfers of guns. That rates a Squish, of Mark One, Mod Zero designation. Mister O'Reilly, who supports the Official Vatican take on (gun) Control, is an "Elmer Fudd", and to some degree, a reluctant self-defense advocate. He has NEVER supported the original intent of the Founders in writing the 2A in the first place: As a means of permitting the arming of Militias as a permanent counter to any possible tyranny of Governments. One has to extend the 2A intent of the Founders to mean that the Militias they authorized in the 2A were meant to be armed with current Infantry weapons, which, at the very least, would be modern autoloading rifles with modern detachable magazines of sufficient capacity to enable the bearers of those rifles to present standard Infantry firing tactics. Without any stretch at all, a proper interpretation of the 2A ought to invalidate ALL the National Firearms Acts, from 1934 through the present. Yes, that interpretation means full-auto infantry weapons are authorized under a literal interpretation of the 2A, as would be shorter barrels, sound suppressors, or added parts of any manufacture (the "922r" rules are unconstitutional under this interpretation).
In the unlikely case that O'Reilly's people actually READ this blog, I offer the following advice to Bill O'Reilly:
- You have retired Federal Judge Andrew Napolitano on your program frequently, and you have him on because he is a strict constructionist when it comes to our Federal Constitution. You might actually READ some of his work.
- The Catholic Church has put itself in direct opposition to the Second Amendment. You have supported their position by advocating for NOT-"reasonable" restrictions on the Second Amendment as well as having their people on to oppose the 2A. I realize that divorce is not accepted in your Catholic church, Mr. O'Reilly, but you need to at least separate yourself from their anti-2A stance, and do it publicly, on the air.
- You claim to be skeptical of Big Government, so how in Hell can you trust the Government to treat gun registrations as anything but a potential list of arrestees reserved for the day that the REAL tyranny begins to occur?