Responding to Selwyn Duke's Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney

In Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney , Selwyn Duke had good cause to take on Mr. "No Spin" zone. But I found it hard to accept that Mr. Duke is unaware of an email sent out by a usually more reliable conservative voice, Michael Savage. [Mr. Duke informed me that, to his recollection, he'd not received the email; I have since forwarded him a copy.] For the record, Selwyn Duke has frequently been interviewed on The Savage Nation.


Let's face it Selwyn. O'Reilly has always been a bit squishy. He often plays to the middle ground, even when there really isn't any firm middle ground and only a slippery slope. So I am less concerned by O'Reilly's stance than I am with a very good friend of yours, Michael Savage.

I received an email yesterday from the Doc entitled:

'You don't need body armor to hunt deer.'

Deer hunting is an old code word that's been used by SKUNCs whenever they get ready to excuse their complicity with the Left on its latest crackdown on self defense, acting as if they never heard that it's governments who have been the gravest threat to liberty time and again in history.

But even worse than that title, there are his words that disclose that the Doc has abandoned conservative principles in favor of "pragmatic" compromise. Here, let his own words reveal the problem.

  "We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.

That's because unless our side controls what gets banned, we're liable to see things happen that we don't want to happen,"

It's as if he suddenly believes that if conservatives will just give the Statists this they'll be satisfied. Appeasement Dr. Savage? Tell us, when has that worked?

Bottom line: We should have never expected much better from O'Reilly; but I think the Right has good cause to be alarmed by Savage's new course.

Mr. Duke responds:

Dear Pascal,

Thank you for posting here, and I'll be happy to respond. I was unaware of the email you cite; I don't believe I ever received it.

Needless to say, however, I disagree profoundly with Michael on this one. And, if I could talk to him, perhaps I'd be able to change his mind. I'd point out that most of us who own guns — and this includes him and me — have them not for hunting but self-defense. Taking this into consideration, one can well see the possible need for body armor. After all, can we be so sure that we won't find ourselves in a Katrina-like situation in which there's social breakdown and bullets are coming our way from armed gangs? It also should be noted that James Holmses's body armor didn't kill anyone on that fateful night in Aurora. Body armor is defensive in function.

In Michael's defense, I'll say that he's an extremely sincere man who never takes positions unless he believes in them. And I certainly wouldn't place his commentary on the same plane as O'Reilly's rant, which displayed a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter on which he was rendering opinions.

But I'll reiterate that I disagree with Michael on this one. We don't need more gun control; we need more criminal control.

July 27, 2012 at 03:12 PM