Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Maher: ‘The Second Amendment is bleep'
The Daily Caller ^ | April 13, 2013 | Jeff Poor

Posted on 04/14/2013 3:44:48 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Edited on 04/14/2013 5:02:48 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

On his Friday HBO program, “Real Time” host Bill Maher said what many people on the left have been reluctant to say: that he opposes the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms.

Maher complained his side would not come out and say that, making the argument a “constant center-right debate.”


(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; billmaher; guncontrol; hbo; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; secondamendment; television
I hope this smokes out some Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans.
1 posted on 04/14/2013 3:44:48 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Molon Labe moron!


2 posted on 04/14/2013 3:45:48 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Then Bill should have his bodyguards turn in their Glocks, Sigs or whatever so that we all can congratulate him personally.


3 posted on 04/14/2013 3:47:06 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Then move to Amend it and do so in a Constitutionally legal way. Instead, they cheat.


4 posted on 04/14/2013 3:48:41 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

5 posted on 04/14/2013 3:49:34 AM PDT by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Those on the left have an avenue to change things. Amend the constitution.


6 posted on 04/14/2013 3:49:37 AM PDT by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Perhaps we should declare the First Amendment is BS for idiotic left wing TV personalities.


7 posted on 04/14/2013 3:53:28 AM PDT by Fzob (In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The folks on the right are too afraid to say what needs to be said too. Loudmouth leftists like Maher should be thankful of that. maybe someday though.


8 posted on 04/14/2013 3:54:20 AM PDT by RC one (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I can’t remember if it was Jefferson, Adams, or Madison who stated that if a comedian in the 21st Century says that the 2nd Amendment is bullsh!t, then, by all means, it’s okay to ignore it!


9 posted on 04/14/2013 3:57:18 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (July 4, 1776: Declaration of Independence. Nov 6, 2012: Declaration of Dependence. R.I.P. America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Maher should seek to amend the Constitution and repeal the 2nd, then.


10 posted on 04/14/2013 4:13:59 AM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

One would ask, does Bill Maher also despise the Swiss nation and the Swiss people? Because the Swiss are GREAT believers in the right, no, the DUTY of its citizens to keep and bear arms. And that small country is also one of the freest nations on earth, beholden to no other nation by alliances or “mutual defense” treaties.

An armed person is a free person, a truth that the founders of this nation recognized very quickly. When a majority or all citizens have arms readily available, it is difficult to enforce draconian “reforms” upon them by decree from the governing authority.

Swiss citizenship is conferred only upon those who are willing to fully and without reservation swear allegiance to the Swiss nation and uphold its duly constituted laws. Which means, you may be able to live in Switzerland for years as a resident alien, but have no right to vote, or to openly keep and bear arms, or to raise objections to the existing order of things. There is a special dispensation for the bearing of arms, extended to those non-citizens who have properly taken the training necessary for the care and maintenance of said arms, and for which there is compelling reason to possess arms.

Even during the Second World War, surrounded on all sides by other nations that believed in some form of totalitarian government, the Swiss were adamant in their refusal to in any way ally themselves with any other hegemony, maintaining a strict and uncompromising neutrality. When Hitler demanded the right to pass through Switzerland to send troops to Italy to defend Mussolini, the Swiss informed him they would dynamite all the road tunnels through the mountains, cause avalanches of rock to cascade down upon open roadways, and station their citizen-soldiers at the crest of the hills and behind fortified barricades to resist the movement of any Nazi troops within their country.

Hitler complied. Even he recognized a losing proposition.


11 posted on 04/14/2013 4:15:00 AM PDT by alloysteel (Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The tools guaranteed by the second amendment should include a bayonet lug.

The liberation might run into Maher.


12 posted on 04/14/2013 4:18:32 AM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
...the Second Amendment is bullsh*t....

Ok, let's get rid of the First Amendment at the same time and shut your ass up too!!

13 posted on 04/14/2013 4:24:43 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Oh yeah? So’s the First, Billy boy.

Tool.


14 posted on 04/14/2013 4:26:57 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Someone- remind me who is Bill Maher and why should his blather pollute my Free Republic?


15 posted on 04/14/2013 4:30:57 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Maher might as well disarm himself physically, since he already obviously disarmed intellectually. Now he’s a matching set!


16 posted on 04/14/2013 4:32:06 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Seek the lesser of two evils and God is likely to give it to you, and the greater evil too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Bill Maher, is a very important fella. Just ask him. Or not.


17 posted on 04/14/2013 4:33:25 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Liberal”, “left”, “progressive” and just camouflage labels for COMMUNISTS.

Get the guns away from the people so they can be dominated.

The FASCISTS and COMMUNISTS sit shoulder to shoulder on the great circle of ideology...overpower the people, turn them into slaves of the state so that a few may rule.

Thanks, Bill. More of your comrades should come out and say what they really think.


18 posted on 04/14/2013 4:36:28 AM PDT by plangent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

19 posted on 04/14/2013 5:07:14 AM PDT by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Does anyone else think this loser looks like the guy
in Silence of the Lambs? “It puts the lotion in the basket.”

LOL!

Fugly freak!


20 posted on 04/14/2013 5:16:23 AM PDT by americas.best.days... ( I think we can now say that they are behind us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

The coke addled midget expresses the left’s unconscious id -iot impulses. Canary in the coal mine so to speak.

They’re coming for our guns, then round us up and Pol Pot us.


21 posted on 04/14/2013 5:18:27 AM PDT by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
This is what they hold out as a promise of the protection of our 2nd Amd rights. One ratchet click at a time. Comply, citizen! Comply! Now turn them in. Or perhaps we'll collect them. Or deactivate them.


22 posted on 04/14/2013 5:18:44 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I was dwelling on this the other morning. The constitution is a contract, not a living document or evolving standard. It sets terms and conditions that the states agreed to in order to federalize. It also gives conditions and parameters in which it can be modified and amended.

The first, second and fourth amendment form the 3 legs for our freedoms to stand. If we implicitly agree and do nothing and let them whittle a leg down outside the well defined amendment process, such as the 2nd amendment, then we do nothing but weaken our freedom.


23 posted on 04/14/2013 5:23:32 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

"Then move to Amend it and do so in a Constitutionally legal way. Instead, they cheat".

My comments below are not a dig at you, just something I have been thinking about concerning the amendment process.

The amendment process is the one thing I have had a hard time wrapping my head around and coming to a logical conclusion about, when it comes to amending our rights and why the Founding Fathers allowed it to be included.

If, as we say, our rights, in the Bill of Rights, are God given rights, which they are, how can our rights be amended, although it is a tough process, if they are God given rights? Only God should be able to give them, take them away or change them, not Congress/States, through an amendment process.

If our rights can be amended/taken away by Congress and the States, then they are not God given rights at all.

Maybe I am missing something or just thinking too hard

24 posted on 04/14/2013 6:02:51 AM PDT by Ez2BRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Calling his political dogma comedy is too.

Pray for America to Wake Up


25 posted on 04/14/2013 6:29:30 AM PDT by bray (Surviving to spite Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Those on the left have an avenue to change things. Amend the constitution.

Nope.

Even if the constitution is amended to repeal the second amendment and replace it with a prohibition of any and all firearms, all humans still have a God-given right to effectively defend themselves against those more numerous, more powerful and less principled than themselves.

26 posted on 04/14/2013 6:32:53 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

Ping.


27 posted on 04/14/2013 6:34:57 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ez2BRepub

No, you’re not thinking too hard.

The Second Amendment doesn’t say “The people shall have the right to bear arms”, it says “The right shall not be infringed”.

Repealing it doesn’t remove the right; repealing it only removes a restriction on government power.


28 posted on 04/14/2013 6:37:14 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

The Constitution protects our God given rights. Even if libtards some how manage to take away the Constitutional protections we still have the God given rights.


29 posted on 04/14/2013 6:38:30 AM PDT by CPOSharky (zero slogan: Expect less, pay more. (apologies to Target))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The 2nd Amendment is only a check on tyrants. When it is gone, would-be tyrants lose the protection the 2nd Amendment affords them.


30 posted on 04/14/2013 6:45:37 AM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Yeah, that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.


31 posted on 04/14/2013 6:49:08 AM PDT by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ez2BRepub

I didn’t think it was allowable to amend the Bill of Rights.


32 posted on 04/14/2013 6:49:37 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Yea Bill?? Well, then.. I think th 1st amendment is shit. I don’t agre with assholes like you being able to publicly defile our culture.


33 posted on 04/14/2013 6:53:35 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I am tired of liberals talking trash. We should ban the 1st amendment for them and see just how fast they want to turn to the 2nd.


34 posted on 04/14/2013 7:05:03 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fzob

“Perhaps we should declare the First Amendment is BS for idiotic left wing TV personalities.”

Good point. In the Founders time dueling was still practiced, obscenity was criminal, and many states had laws against blasphemy as well. So, 1st A wise, we’ve drifted a long way from Original Intent.


35 posted on 04/14/2013 7:05:55 AM PDT by I Shall Endure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The most effective strategy to use against this sawed-off, foul-mouthed deviant is to ignore him and the 200 people who actually comprise his viewing base. Really, who cares what this cretin has to say about anything?

So sick of the way conservative reporting is descending to the middle school girl model of blabbing about who said what about whom and what was said in return. Leave that territory to the left.


36 posted on 04/14/2013 7:08:27 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved! -Ps80)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ez2BRepub

Our right are recognized by the Constitution not given by it. If amended such that it no longer recognized this natural right we would no longer live in a free Republic that recognized the natural rights of people, but in a tyranny. The Constitution can be amended to no longer recognize and guarantee natural rights, or amended to recognize and guarantee others not enumerated. It is our choice as a Republic, but the natural rights always were and always will be.


37 posted on 04/14/2013 7:30:29 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ez2BRepub
If, as we say, our rights, in the Bill of Rights, are God given rights, which they are, how can our rights be amended, although it is a tough process, if they are God given rights? Only God should be able to give them, take them away or change them, not Congress/States, through an amendment process.

If our rights can be amended/taken away by Congress and the States, then they are not God given rights at all.

I doubt this is the whole and complete answer to your questions, Ez2BRepub, but here's a thought you may find of interest, (from a lifelong atheist, no less.)

Are we talking about rights themselves, or our current understanding of them?

The founding fathers, for example, didn't define rights: didn't say specifically what they are and are not, nor did they include a right of privacy, nor a right to travel, nor a right to communicate, nor even a right to property. Why not? I have a hunch the didn't define rights because it was unimaginable to them those could ever be questioned. Everyone knew what rights are; likewise, everyone knew what the word "is" meant. I believe they assumed the rights to privacy and property were unquestionable.

I sincerely hope we'll add those and other rights to an extended Bill of Rights after the restoration of our constitutional republic. I doubt we'll be changing our rights themselves, but our perception or understanding of them.

Yea? Nay?

38 posted on 04/14/2013 7:58:35 AM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
Maher complained his side would not come out and say that, making the argument a "constant center-right debate."
Apparently party-line Dipsh*t Maher doesn't follow the news.


39 posted on 04/14/2013 8:00:21 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Democrats like to pick and choose which civil rights they support.


40 posted on 04/14/2013 10:23:21 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Obama's vision - No Job is a Good Job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I believe in everyone's right to free speech... even ignorant speech... and I do not as a rule condone violence. But when it comes to Bill Maher and his insipid anti-American propaganda, I believe his inability to think rationally stems from the excessive pressure being placed on his brain by the unusually massive root-system required to support that sagging beachball he calls a "nose."

He needs to have his head ventilated... you know, to relieve all that dangerous pressure.

;^)

41 posted on 04/14/2013 10:51:41 AM PDT by Gargantua ("Barbie O'Bunga ~ America's First Fly-Strewn, Maggot-Gagging Fag President")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Standing Wolf

If the Founding Fathers did not define rights, then why is it called the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights serves to protect the natural rights of Liberty and Property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms by limiting the power of the Gov’t.

I guess what I am trying to reconcile is, that right now, on one hand, because of the Bill of Rights, the Congress does not have the power to infringe/amend/eliminate, etc., any of those rights, like they are trying to do in the Senate/House right now. But with the Congress and enough States the Bill of Rights can be infringed/amended/eliminated, etc.

It seems to me the Founding Fathers contradicted themselves by not allowing the Congress, alone, to change them but the Congress and enough States to do so.


42 posted on 04/14/2013 11:00:00 AM PDT by Ez2BRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Those on the left have an avenue to change things. Amend the constitution.

Odd how IF sooooo many people agree with them they don't take this obvious route. Guess they're lying again...and that's why.

43 posted on 04/14/2013 1:21:10 PM PDT by GOPJ (New AP term for Illegal Aliens IS Undocumented Democrats.... Jay Leno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ez2BRepub
If the Founding Fathers did not define rights, then why is it called the Bill of Rights?

Sorry, Ez2BRepub, but using a word doesn't define it.

It seems to me the Founding Fathers contradicted themselves by not allowing the Congress, alone, to change them but the Congress and enough States to do so.

There's the problem! Congress claims it's merely so-called "interpreting" our rights, whereas in fact, it's radically altering them, which does, indeed, require constitutional amendments.

In my admittedly slightly less than humble opinion, we need to fire Congress en masse, send new people to Washington, D.C. to represent rather than rule us, and make it abundantly clear we expect short term limits.

I didn't say I believe any of that's actually going to happen: merely what we, the people ought to do.

44 posted on 04/14/2013 1:31:37 PM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Standing Wolf

Understand, I have a scientific mind and anything I say is not meant to trash anyone, or cause a fight, I just had a question about the Founders and why they set up an amendment process, when they are supposed to be rights and not changeable. I would like to have other people join the conversation to help clarify, if possible, what I had a problem reconciling, concerning the Founders, rights and the amendment process.

The first part of what you said makes no sense. Using a word does not define it?

The definition of “define” is to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.).

The Founding Fathers used the word “rights” in the Bill of Rights, they did not say, The Bill of Needs, The Bill of Gov’t Control, etc.

They were clearly defining the meaning.

In the second part of your response, I am not sure if you are agreeing with me that the Founders contradicted themselves.

You are saying that Congress is altering the Bill of Rights, when they do not have the power to do so but can do so, through an amendment process.

Does that not show that the Founders contradicted themselves, as I said before?


45 posted on 04/14/2013 3:49:56 PM PDT by Ez2BRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Schumer Promises Universal Background Checks Won’t Create A Gun Registry… Then Calls It “Universal Registration”… http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/25/schumer-promises-universal-background-checks-wont-create-a-gun-registry-then-calls-it-universal-registration/ NRA Stand and Fight: Universal Registration http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hKq3967hUgU

46 posted on 04/14/2013 5:36:11 PM PDT by Voice of Reason88 ( Freedom is never lost all at once - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ez2BRepub
The first part of what you said makes no sense. Using a word does not define it?

If using words defined them, we wouldn't need dictionaries, would we?

47 posted on 04/14/2013 5:52:21 PM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ez2BRepub

Keep in mind that the Constitution is a contract and as a legal instrument, unique in all the history of the world. The Founders recognized that human beings are frail and fallible people, subject to every sin listed in the Ten Commandments.

Looking at history and the contemporary politics of their day they knew that it was wholly normal for government to be corrupted, because the people are corrupted. How do you stop or limit this corruption? Competing interests or power bases.

Hence, they split the federal powers into three with the presumption that the executive would be very limited and weak. The set up the Presidency (executive) to be fairly weak and most certainly weaker than any king of their age. Most of the power would be in the legislature - a House of Representatives (close to the people and subject to the whim and emotion of the crowd) elected every two years and a Senate (close to the states and more aristocratic in that they were appointed by state governments which historicallyy represent the aristocratic and monied interest of a state) elected every six years and more insulated from the people.

They designed a natural tension not only between the three branches of the federal government, but also between the states themselves and the federal government. Each tension in the system defending against encroachments by the others on their power and authority. The Founders expected treachery and designed for it.

The Amendment process is a major part of that design. Certainly, they knew that history isn’t kind to liberty. Liberty mostly fails. It’s one thing to know you have God-given rights, it’s another to get to exercise them. So, at some time in the future there would be those who would convince a majority of the people that we didn’t need or want this or that right.

By having the Constitution (contract) state how it could be amended the process of the destruction of our God-given rights could be slowed and perhaps undone over the deliberations on amendments. The Founders knew it was the Devil’s world.


48 posted on 04/15/2013 3:41:20 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson