Bill Maher: “The Second Amendment is Bullshit!”
I’ve said many times before that I don’t watch Real Time with Bill Maher, but I watch quite a bit of HBO (Game of Thrones and movies), and sometimes it just happens to be on and I catch part of it.
Earlier this week, Michael “Fatboy” Moore and Bill “I look like a pedophile” Maher were at it again.
First, Maher states that after taxes went up, the deficit fell more than expected. Don’t get me wrong, that’s always a good thing. He concluded that these tax increases really weren’t hurting anyone.
I sat there in disbelief. I shouldn’t have been shocked, because I think Maher is a smug, arrogant ass who hasn’t a clue what he is talking about.
Yes, the deficit is decreasing, but the debt is still increasing! The two are not the same thing, but what he is saying is that the debt isn’t increasing as fast as it had been.
One of his other panelists, a columnist from the New York Times did not that the economy was slowing down from the tax increases, but Maher doesn’t care. The deficit is coming down! Who cares if we all start losing our jobs again? He’s got a secure position as a useful idiot on pay television.
The conversation then swung to the Second Amendment. Moore started in about statistics that said 81% of young people didn’t want to have a gun, so they were winning that battle. Of course he never cites the source of his numbers, so as usual, he’s probably pulling them out of his fat ass.
Moore expressed disgust at the notion of background checks being blocked in Congress.
MSNBC host SE Cupp pointed out that background checks assume that the person has some nefarious purpose for purchasing a weapon, and they have to prove they are not a criminal in order to get one. That’s the same as saying you are guilt until proven innocent.
Of course, Moore said that “if you want to purchase a weapon that can kill 20 school children, I want to know where it is”. So, for Moore, it isn’t just about the weapon itself, it is about invading your privacy.
“We the People, that means the majority, and the majority want gun control.”
I can’t find the exact page where I saw it, but it is my understanding that the desire for gun control spiked after Sandy Hook, and has been declining ever since, dropping below a majority last month during the push for gun control legislation, possibly due to people seeing what some of the states were doing, like New York, California, and the proposals in Oregon and Washington.
There is a term that Moore obviously never learned, and that is the “Tyranny of the Majority”.
If a majority wants to try to take rights away from people, that is a form of tyranny. It is commonly misunderstood that only governments can be tyrants.
He also went on to say that he wants the Second Amendment “amended” to say that “we agree with what the Founders wanted, but it only covers muskets….”
That is where these liberal idiots go wrong.
The Second Amendment isn’t about muskets.
The Founding Fathers were smart enough to design a system of government almost from scratch. In order to do so, they drew from what the States were doing, English Parliament, and ancient Rome. If they were smart enough to know the history of ancient Rome, then they were smart enough to know that weapons evolved over time, from the rock and club, to the dagger, to the sword, the spear, bow and arrow to the musket. I’m sure they realized that weapons would continue to evolve. To say that they only meant muskets is blatantly ignorant, but should come as no surprise to anyone that Moore believes this while he hides behind his armed bodyguards.
But I think the ignorant quote of the night came from greaseball Maher.
“The Second amendment is bullshit. It says a well-regulated militia, and we have neither militia nor is it well-regulated.”
So I guess the California National Guard isn’t militia, nor has it been “well-regulated”.
It’s true, the National Guard is not a militia in the sense that it meant before the 1900’s. Today’s militia is much better trained and organized. The State militias would train within their own states, they did not go off to Basic Training.
Make no mistake, the First Congress agreed that the Second Amendment is about militias. Their debates make that crystal clear. However, because some of the states feared that Congress would defund the militias and not arm them, the Amendment came to be. Why?
The militia were made up of the citizenry, and they were expected to serve in it. It wasn’t like it is today, where people volunteer to join. While I won’t say participation was mandatory back then, because I’m not sure if it was, but young men of certain ages were expected to serve. In case of emergency, they were expected to grab their weapons and come at a moments notice. The Massachusetts Minutemen were great examples of this expectation.
In order for the militia to grab their arms and rush off at a moment’s notice, they need to have their weapons handy and ready to go.
Thus “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Things have changed over the last 200+ years, but does it really matter?
Somewhere around the turn of the 20th Century, things changed. The militias were changed into the “National” Guard, and became more an extension of the Federal government, a reserve force for the Army. They are Federalized every time we go to war, or if there is a disaster. They are usually first on the scene. their role has been greatly expanded. But does that mean that the people no longer need to right to arms?
James Madison wrote in the Federalist #46 “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.“
What advantage does being armed give us, I wonder? Why would European kingdoms not trust their citizens with weapons? To defending against tyranny and keeping the government in check?
While very few came out and directly said “it is to defend against tyranny of the government”, there were those who said it, and some were very influential.
This government is reaching a point where it is afraid to trust the citizenry with weapons, and using children and tragedy to attempt to strip away the rights of the people.
In a perfect world, people would not kill other people. People would not steal from others, and governments would not grow too large and oppress people, but alas, we don’t live in a perfect world.
Today, we are seeing what a large government is capable of doing. How much longer do we tolerate it?