Skip to comments.Bill Maher: ‘The Second Amendment is bleep'
Posted on 04/14/2013 3:44:48 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVetEdited 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 ...
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.
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.
Calling his political dogma comedy is too.
Pray for America to Wake Up
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.
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.
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.
The 2nd Amendment is only a check on tyrants. When it is gone, would-be tyrants lose the protection the 2nd Amendment affords them.
Yeah, that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
I didn’t think it was allowable to amend the Bill of Rights.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Democrats like to pick and choose which civil rights they support.
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.