Bill O’Reilly doesn’t suffer fools. And his patience for our current Commander-in-Chief has reached its limit in the wake of the shooting in Orlando. Obama is, once again, allowing the conversation to shift to guns–and O’Reilly has had enough.
[Scroll Down for Video]
This latest response comes from O’Reilly’s reaction to some of Obama’s recent rhetoric. Not only is the POTUS talking about gun bans again, he’s also talking about containing radical Islamic terrorism.
“This containment garbage is getting people killed,” O’Reilly said. “You don’t contain evil. You destroy it or it destroys you.”
O’Reilly sees the problem as something that shouldn’t be contained, but eradicated. Dealt with. Snuffed out. To contain evil is to make a place for it. There is no place for it, he’s saying, and so he wants to crush it out altogether. And he’s not alone.
And this eradication is precisely the responsibility of the President. It requires an active and aggressive approach that goes in search of the terrorism before it has the chance to strike. Not after.
“All Americans are at risk because Islamic terrorists want to kill us just because we are Americans.”
These ideas aren’t new to O’Reilly. When addressing the politicized response to a school shooting in Oregon last year, he noted that police are reactive. It is one thing for sworn law enforcement officers to respond to active situations, but it isn’t enough. “I have a right to protect myself,” O’Reilly pointed out.
He mentions the President’s initiative to free up space in our massively overcrowded prisons by releasing non-violent drug dealers as one of the potential threats. It isn’t being soft on crime that will solve our problems, but precisely the opposite. Crack down, he says.
His plan? He’s advocating that we find coordination at federal, state, and local level about guns. He harps on the age-old argument about enforcement. Why have laws if the laws aren’t enforced? What good does it do to pass all of these restrictions if there’s no teeth to enforcement on the back end? The only ones who will obey the actual laws are the law abiding citizens. And they’re not the ones who are shooting up gay night clubs, or rural campuses in Oregon, or the streets of Chicago.
O’Reilly puts forth a simple answer. Any crime committed in the United States that includes a firearm should have a 10 year mandatory federal sentence. This would have a massive impact on career criminals but it may not solve all problems, and certainly not the one seen in Orlando.
“It will never stop the individual nuts, ever.” O’Reilly observes accurately. If you know you are going to die, there’s no law made by man that has much hold on you. And then there are the religious nuts. They already think they’re answering to a higher law.
Still, O’Reilly has a way of cutting through the bovine excrement. It isn’t just the convincing delivery that makes his logic so compelling–there is some actual logic backing it up. When he gets into the piece about mandatory federal sentences for firearms crimes, he hits his stride.
His logic is infallible. Politicians can talk this issue to death. Shelve it. Assign it to a committee. But if you want something meaningful done, you have to attack enforcement. And the laws being enforced have to hurt those who commit them. Until then, this is all just a bunch of politicians doing what they do best.