2ND AMENDMENT : EXTREME

I've not a fan of Bill O'Reilly. I'm not going to waste time listing the reasons why. But on Thursday night he did an interview with the founder of Oath Keepers, and in the process stated that swearing to uphold the Bill of Rights is "extreme".

In previous posts, I've often written critically of a situation involving police officers. On other sites, I've been labeled a troll, a cop hater, a cop lover, a liberal, and a closet Obama supporter. So let's clear something up:

My grandfathers were WWII vets. My father is a vet. My stepfather was a vet. My favorite uncle was a cop, who was shot in the line of duty (and thankfully, survived and went on to have a great life with his future family). I am not anti-military or anti-cop. What I am is someone who despises people who are entrusted with protecting American citizens, and abuse that power through either ineptitude or advancing/protecting their own self-interests.

In case you aren't familiar with Oathkeepers, here's a description from their website:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”

Oath Keepers deserves respect, not a condescending brush-off from Bill O'Reilly. They are the best of the good guys, taking a public stand and saying "We will do what we swore to do." The men and women of Oath Keepers will not trample the rights of their fellow citizens, merely because a superior orders them to. They will use their own morals, their intelligence, and their love of their country's Constitution to protect the rights of everyone. Their views are not "extremist"; they are the epitome of professionalism and personal honor.

After the illegal confiscations in New Orleans after Katrina, several good laws were passed to protect 2A rights from being disregarded in the future. Bill O'Reilly believes this is extreme. One wonders how he would feel if he was told that during a state of emergency, he would not be allowed to broadcast his views. I doubt he would support the same "part time" validity of the First Amendment.