Bill Maher: “The Second Amendment is Bullshit!”

Posted on May 21, 2013. Filed under: Gun Control, Politics | Tags: , , , |

Bill Maher and Ingrid Newkirk

Bill Maher and Ingrid Newkirk (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Second Amendment, Part One Has Been Added!

Posted on April 24, 2013. Filed under: Founding Fathers, History, United States Constitution | Tags: , , , |

I finally finished the part one of my series of articles about the Second Amendment. In it I attempt to address how the amendment came into being and the links between the Second Amendment and slavery.

I hope you find it interesting and helpful. I will be posting part two as soon as I am able, covering the Congressional debates, and how Congress viewed the meaning of the Amendment.

The article is here:

The Bill Of Rights: The Second Amendment

Just follow the link on the page.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Bill of Rights: The Second Amendment Research Paper

Posted on April 19, 2013. Filed under: Founding Fathers, History, United States Constitution | Tags: , , , , |

I can’t believe this.

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peal...

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale, 1805. Is he wearing a fur coat?

I’ve said many, many, many times that I do a lot of reading in the course of my research.

Right now I’m researching the history and roots of the Second Amendment, based on the debates and records of the Founding Fathers, resources from universities and the Library of Congress. No garbage from a book written in 2003 that has material from Thomas Jefferson that no one else has ever heard of. Only verifiable sources for me.

In addition, I am trying to provide links to the resources I have used so readers and researchers can find them as well.

I’ve been in note taking mode for a few weeks, which is why there have been some other amendments that have appeared on the list before this one.

So far, I am close to 5000 words in notes alone, and I feel I have barely started. I still have to turn those notes into a coherent article.

It is getting so large because I am trying to definitively answer these questions:

  • What exactly did the Founders mean?
  • Did the Founders mean that all individuals could keep and bear arms, or only militias?
  • Was the Second Amendment a compromise meant to allow the states to quell slave rebellions?
  • Was it meant to hold blacks in slavery?
  • Was it meant to allow people to hunt, or shoot for sport?
  • Was it meant to give the people a means of defense against a tyrannical government?

I am surprised at some of the answers that I’ve been coming up with.

I’m hoping that the answers won’t be too subjective. I don’t want people accusing me of “cherry picking” my Founding Fathers, and I don’t want to use spurious quotes (there’s a lot of them from Thomas Jefferson floating around, hence the picture of him).

I am working on it, but I have a feeling it is going to at least double, if not triple in size, so I may have to break it down into chapters and put it out in bite sized chunks.

It wouldn’t be so bad if I were a team of researchers, but I’m not. I’m just one person.

I’m sure I am going to be exhausted and need a break when I’m finally finished.

You can read the completed project by following this link.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Reid Drops Feinstein’s Gun Control and Other Gun Control news

Posted on March 20, 2013. Filed under: Gun Control, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

Gun rights advocates are celebrating that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has single-handedly defeated Diann Feinstein’s draconian assault weapons and magazine ban. He has dropped it as part of an overall gun control bill, but has said that she can try to add it as an amendment, but he believes that she doesn’t have the votes to get it.

A solid victory for gun rights advocates! You got that, AND pissed Michael Moore off at the same time! What could be sweeter than that?

Not so fast. Now is not the time to sit on our laurels and bask in the light of victory. This battle has only just begun.

Reid has his own gun control package he wants to pass, and he dropped Feinstein’s bill because he thought it would harm his overall gun control bill.

Which means, obviously, there is a gun control bill on the horizon.

However, Feinstein said she won’t roll over and play dead. She has suggested that she will break her bill into smaller packages and feed them to the Senate to have a vote, one at a time if needed.

Reid’s new gun bill will hit the floor in April, but who knows when Feinstein’s bill(s) will come to the floor.

In other news, Colorado has signed laws that greatly expand background checks and limits the sizes of magazine.

Magpul, manufacturer of gun accessories such as magazines, has said that if these bills are signed into law, they would be moving their company out of Colorado.

The response from Colorado’s government?

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

In New York, where the governor Andrew Cuomo signed the SAFE Act into law, his approval is plummeting. People are angry over the law. They have also arrested a man for selling two semi-automatic rifles and 300 rounds of ammunition, felonies under the new state law.

This is getting crazy folks. Totalitarianism is settling over us. These people don’t care about saving the lives of children. Children are pawns to them, pawns to be used to tax more money from us, and systematically take our rights away.

Feinstein is like the crazy aunt you hide away in the attic. No one takes her seriously anymore. She feels she was betrayed by Reid. She was betrayed by her nutcase ideas. She needs to be put to pasture. Most of them need to be put to pasture. The Constitution requires a minimum age to be elected to the Senate. It may be time to set a maximum age in the Senate to move some of the Alzheimer’s patients out of the government.

In the meantime, DHS is refusing to answer to Congress, explaining why they have purchased so much ammunition, “assault weapons” and armored vehicles.

There are those who think that we are being paranoid about Congress (and our state legislatures) trying to strip our rights away from us, but when the government has a non-military agency stockpiling weapons and ammunition, we have every reason to be paranoid.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

No One is Coming to Take Your Guns in Missouri or Minnesota

Posted on February 15, 2013. Filed under: Gun Control, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

They want to compel you to surrender them.

Yesterday I wrote about Washington Senate Bill 5737, the latest knee jerk reaction to the school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.

I had talked about how that bill not only violates the Second Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment as well. Then I started thinking about it, and I began to think I was incomplete.

NOTICE: Washington’s bill has since been amended and the provision for the Sheriff’s searches has been removed.

Then I discovered that Missouri proposed a new bill (HB 545), and if you scroll all the way to the bottom, you find this gem:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

            (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

            (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

            (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

So, if you own an assault weapon in Missouri, you either have to remove it from the State of Missouri, destroy it, or turn it in for destruction within 90 days of the enactment of the legislation..

This bill reached its second read on February 13, 2013.  It has been sponsored by Rory Ellinger (D), Jill Schupp (D), Margo McNeil (D) and Rochelle Walton-Gray (D). All Democrats. What a surprise.

Then Minnesota mimics the move by introducing HF 241, a bill that is very similar to Missouri’s bill, except that you get until September 1, 2013 to get rid of or destroy your “assault” rifle, no matter when the bill goes into effect:

   Sec. 7. PERSONS POSSESSING ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EFFECTIVE DATE 
10.21OF ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.
10.22Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault 
10.23weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to 
10.24prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
10.25(1) remove the weapon from the state;
10.26(2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;
10.27(3) render the weapon permanently inoperable; or
10.28(4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 
10.29624.7133, subdivision 5.
10.30EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

The bill has had its first reading as of 1/31/2013. The authors are: Alice Hausman (DFL [Democratic Farm Labor]), Frank Hornstein (DFL), Erik Simonson (DFL), Jim Davnie (DFL), Linda Slocum (DFL), Rena Moran (DFL), Raymond Dehn (DFL), JoAnn Ward (DFL), and Phyllis Khan (DFL)

Democrats, every last one of them.

So, we have two states with legislation that requires owners of “assault” weapons to remove them from the State or destroy them.

The first implication is of course, the violation of the Second Amendment; The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Potential violation of the Third Amendment as it establishes the right of privacy (believe it or not); No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice William O. Douglas ruled: The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers “in any house” in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy.

Violation of the Fifth Amendment: No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As you can see, it goes far beyond just the Second Amendment. It extends to the Third and Fifth as well. On further contemplation, if these bills pass, the Supreme Court is going to be busy, but until then, are these states going to go house to house to make sure all “assault” weapons have been removed, further violating rights by violating the Fourth?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Washington State’s SB 5737 Gun Control More Draconian than Feinstein’s – Second Update 2/18/2013

Posted on February 14, 2013. Filed under: Gun Control, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Update 2: 2/18/2013: The original text of Washington State Senate bill 5737 has been found. It can be seen here. It is about halfway down the page (the third line 21 from the top of page 2).

Hat tip to reader Jeff. Thanks so much for taking the time to find it.

UPDATE: The wording regarding the county sheriff doing any inspections has apparently been removed. the link now points to a corrected copy of the bill.

For those who think that Lianne Feinstein’s gun control bill was draconian, you haven’t seen anything yet.

For those who believe that New York’s new gun control laws are more draconian, that’s nothing.

The Washington State Senate is introducing SB 5737: an assault weapons ban. Okay, how is this any different than any of the others?

It’s different because it not only allows the State of Washington to violate Second Amendment rights (or First Amendment if you’re Nancy Pelosi), it gives them the power and the right to violate your Fourth Amendment rights.

Let’s take a look at parts of the bill. Page 6, line 27:

(2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.

In other words, they aren’t banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, you just can’t use them. In fact, you cannot possess the two together, even if the weapons are not loaded, unless you are turning it into the police for destruction, or going to a “duly licensed and lawfully operated” shooting range. As opposed to a duly licensed, unlawfully operated shooting range? If you are transporting to go to a shooting range, it has to be carried in a separate, locked container away from the ammunition. You have to be careful, because if they are stored together, they might be tempted to load themselves and go on a killing rampage. If you are caught in violation, you are guilty of a Class C Felony.

But here is where it gets chilling…. Page 7, line 18:

(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;

The county sheriff may conduct an inspection no more than once a year to ensure the weapon is safely secured and stored.

I wonder what would happen if you told the sheriff to come back with a warrant?

That is an absolute violation of the Fourth Amendment. It shouldn’t come as any surprise that the people who come up with these things obviously have no idea what the Fourth Amendment is.

Violating this section is a gross misdemeanor, however, Section 5 insinuates that if the sheriff doesn’t think that your weapon is secured enough, he can confiscate it, and you lose your “privilege” to possess an “assault weapon”. To State Senators Ed Murray (D), Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D), and Adam Kline (D), the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.

Each knee jerk reaction brings about more draconian legislation, but they ignore one major inconvenient fact.

Criminals don’t obey gun laws, but lawmakers don’t care. They know what’s best for all of us.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 7 so far )

  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta

  • Blog Stats

    • 14,724 hits

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: